Homework Assignment 8: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Khan Academy: The Good

I believe online educational websites, like Khan academy, represent a positive aspect of the Internet. Khan academy, in particular, allows anybody to browse a selection of 2,400 educational videos online for free. Here, people are able to learn almost anything for free, and watch at their own pace and liking.

Over the summer, I used Khan Academy, to help prepare for organic chemistry, which I was taking in the upcoming semester. It helped me get a head start on a difficult subject, reducing some of the anxiety I had. It also allowed me to revisit topics, in other subjects, in which I wanted a refreshing on.

Khan Academy is just one of the many educational websites existing on the web today. I believe that by giving students the option to access additional educational videos online, like those found on Khan Academy, we are promoting a more successful education for everybody.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/10/the-education-visionary

Internet Swatting: The Bad

This article, titled, “Online Joke Triggers Police Response,” brings forth an online joke conducted by pranksters across the globe, which targets law enforcement officials and emergency medical staff. The more formal term given to this kind of pranking is “swatting,” or an attempt to trick a dispatcher into reporting a false emergency to local emergency responders. It’s purposely called swatting, because the emergencies reported are meant to draw in a SWAT team. This type of pranking is becoming more popular, and causing many problems along the way.  This is why I believe it represents the bad side of the Internet.

False reporting of emergencies is causing law enforcement to become skeptical about reported crimes. Actual crimes may be overlooked because of this. Swatting is a dangerous way to prank, and is distracting law enforcement from their job. In addition, calls can be made from around the country or world, which makes it difficult to locate and prosecute the criminals.

http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/special-reports/online-joke-triggers-police-response/-/13386842/19896170/-/format/rsss_2.0/item/1/-/3wx5ip/-/index.html

Boston Marathon Scammers: The Ugly

The 2013 Boston marathon is a race that will be remembered forever. As a result, people from all around the world have come together, donating money to a help those affected by this traumatic event. Unfortunately, this article discusses how marathon scammers are becoming a prominent part of the Internet today. I believe actions like these represent the ugly part of the Internet. They allow scammers to easily target good causes.

This article specifically mentioned a situation in which a fake twitter account tricked more than 27,000 people into believing that if they re-tweeted a post, a $1 donation would be given to the Boston fund.  I believe this example magnifies how drastic Internet scamming is, and how it’s often difficult to tell the legitimacy of a situation.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/editorials/2013/04/17/internet-keep-marathon-scammers-and-trolls-bay/iDxFiHB819WNeaLnrrIh5O/story.html

Location Tracking

I don’t believe that microchipping children appeals to many people, as it raises the concern of breached privacy. To many, the idea that the government could track any US citizen at their own will is of concern. In addition to tracking, the chip would store personal information about the individual wearing it, which could be easily obtained by somebody else. The idea of having a microchip in the body could make somebody feel less of a human and more of an object.

To some, however, the chip adds an extra layer of security. Having the option to track a family member on radar and know their exact location within minutes is a reassuring feature.  

After looking closely at the idea of microchipping a human, you begin to realize the many dangers it could pose. I believe the cons of using a microchip outweigh the pros and here’s why.

The microchips implanted into animals can’t be tracked on radar, but rather, needs to be scanned by a special device, in which an address of the owner is then provided. The scanning feature of the microchip animals wear would be of little use to humans. A satellite chip that would allow for optimal tracking is said to be far off in the future.

If a child were to be abducted, and the pedophile were aware of the fact that the child is wearing a microchip, they may panic and either gouge the microchip out themselves, or just kill them.

A killer, who has the information of a child’s tracking device, could wait until they are in a vulnerable area to abduct them.         

VeriChip is one of the FDA approved implants sold within the US, and according to lab trials has shown to induce cancer in lab rats.

I don’t believe that parents have the right to microchip their young children or teenagers. It’s an invasion of privacy into the lives of both, and poses the unnecessary risks listed above.

I especially believe that planting a microchip in a teenager would be an invasion of privacy. A parent could easily misuse this feature and begin stalking their own child, tracking their every move. The purpose of the chip is to track their child in a time of emergency and I don’t believe many parents would limit the use of it to just that.

I also believe that rebellious teenagers themselves would create a huge problem. Those who feel as though their security and privacy has been removed by these chips wouldn’t hesitate to remove it themselves.

I don’t believe the congress should ever pass a law that requires ID chips to be placed in children under the age of 5. I believe that privacy should be a right at any age, even if the child is young.

I believe the use of GPS shoes to track senior citizens is a great idea. It’s one in which could provide safety and comfort to many people. If you had an elderly parent that was just beginning to suffer from the side effects of a disease such as Alzheimer’s, you could track their whereabouts.

I also feel as though the shoe tracker is much less invasive than a microchip. It’s not physically placed inside of you, and can be taken off when wanted to.

Cell Phones and Privacy

There are many legitimate reasons why somebody may choose a to use a prepaid phone.

For many people signing up for a cellphone plan through a major contract wireless carrier is a big monthly expense. If a family is looking to slash the price of their hefty cellphone bill, choosing a prepaid plan could save them roughly $800 per year. Along with the drastic decrease in costs, the reception and call quality is also supposed to be better.

Some people aren’t as phone savvy as others, so why should they pay the same price? One of the biggest advantages of using a prepaid phone is the fact that you can tailor it to your own usage. You can buy individual packs of minutes online, over the phone and through major retail stores. That way you can have a cheap phone that still allows you to call in times of need.

One of the biggest downfalls to entering a phone contract is the fact that you are typically locked in for at least two years. Prepaid phones on the other hand allow somebody to leave at any time. There is no hassle of contract signing.

I believe that the government should have some regulation over the distribution of prepaid cellphones. Although most Americans use prepaid cellphones lawfully, the ability to become anonymous through the use of them is too dangerous. I believe a bill, like the one unveiled by U.S. lawmakers today, should require all prepaid phone users to provide some sort of identification when purchasing one, and for that information to be retained throughout the use of it.

I also believe that prepaid phones shouldn’t be able to be purchased with just cash. Providing a credit card during transaction would allow the government to track people more easily, making it more difficult for terrorists, drug and gang members to cover their tracks.