Why believe things you have no context for? If I'm going to read someone's blog, and the blog has only been up for 15 seconds, why would I believe it. IF someone's been blogging for 5 years, and is linked into a network, some of whom I know or know of, the believability will go up. The more viral marketting we get, the better, so the troggs feel stupid about being conned, and they either grow a critical awareness or just head back to the mall. Viruses are spread by people.
I teach about children and technology, so my statement is not strange, but I've always believed that young learners (if they're going to use digital technology at all, which is a different issue) should have the best. In the old days, you'd see a child with a 256 colour display trying to do something using cassette tapes to load programs while we whizzed away with the best stuff. It seemed strange to provde the developing mind with the most limited set of tools when a business exec who never did much with it anyway and the brightest and shiniest. Of course the child is seen as less valuable. My attitude is, and was before I started teaching about childrean and tech., that you give the best [insert variable] to the children to get the best children, and that the best children lead to the best adults. But we give the worst to children. (I've used best and worst for their vague sense of value without specifics to keep with the notion of the article). I don't know if the OLPC project is the best thing for children, though I've been following the topic for longer than this specific project's been around, but they might as well have the best possible security, since the world does such a poor job of keeping them safe in most other categories.
they have a photoshop filter to remove that... and of course, next time you try to return to the US after travel, they'll pull that up on the screen. wheeeeee!
The whole idea of getting a child to trust a bit of software to tell it what's right and wrong should make programers and parents alike cringe. Not to mention anyone who is aware of the uses to which this information can/will be put to in the name of marketting to children, which is bad enough as it is. I wonder how long it will take before children are 'told' that certain sites are better than others, directing them away from sites that don't promote a particular political or corporate agenda. Or that 'controversial' issues somehow fall into the not to be trusted category.
When it comes to children and technology, the goal is to educate parents and provide safe opportunities for children online, NOT to fob it off to a bit of software for all the myriad reasons.
Just imagine what these children will grow up like when they've just trusted the software from their earliest days. I cringe.
This suing is a great thing, IMHO. Of course parents have a responsibility. And children should be virtually street-proofed. But technologies have to provide those tools to allow for parents to do the best job. And it is too eash for developers to claim neutrality. And it is all to easy to wake them up with recourse to the courts.
I have a bias, because I train educators in how to use technology with young children. My personal opinion is that leaving children online without an adult knowing what's going on is a problem. Like leaving them at home with guns before someone got the idea of locked cabinets and saftey, or putting labels on products.
I like what Second Life is doing, keeping spaces separate, it a good idea. I reminds me of Amy Bruckman's work with MOOsecrossing at MIT in the 90s. In order for me to have access to a space that had children in, lots of paperwork would need to be done. In real life, to work with children, I have a criminal background check done, as do all my students. Only seems reasonable.
SO, how could software and technology help make children safer WHILE encouraging parents to be involved with use? Well there are many options. I would consider requiring some form of identity ID for these sites, but one that protects identity from casual observances, while keeping files that would ensure a contiguous relationship between the person online and the person irl. Personally, I think it is just fine for someone to pretend what they are not. But do they have the right to do so without it being known? What if, for example, a youth under the age of 18 wants to pretend she or he is older. Well, that's well and good. In a blog, it is easy to see through this as soon as you read back on posts and see how the narrative plays out over time. And if not, you know that you're just reading people's stories, not reading them. But this sort of thing doesn't really exist in myspace. It is more of an interactive self-promotional tool. It is a self-marketting space. It is all hype without much space for depth or content. Of course that's why younger folks, with out much depth or content, like it. The mall rather than the library. But, to contextualize the digression, if there was a screen widget that merely flagged someone as 'not what they seem' we could have a mental marker that though we may interact with this individual as per their persona, we would realize the socially constructed nature of that persona. You might not think that this is necessary, because we know that all online identity is constructed, and is at best a filtered representation of the self. But this is learned. And when relative newbies go online and present themselves as they think they are, more like who they want to be seen as, they fall into the trap of seeing others as being as they appear. And a little blinky light identifying people as 'not what they seem' when their online persona differs from their stored data doesn't stop one from identity workshopping, but it does provide a reminder that things are not what they seem.
Another interesting possibility would be parental reports. A parent getting a report of who the child has talked to being made available, not necessarily what is said, but that something was said. I had this experience where I was conversing with a very young family member. I let it be known that though I would respect this individual's privacy, if anything went wrong or I thought this persona's health or saftey was compromised, I would inform parents and authorities. That sense of 'pretty good privacy' to re-purpose the term, is what I'm speaking towards. Respecting the social rights of children to communicate, but recognize that online communication should have a monitoring feature that keeps track of who is talking to whom, when children are involved.
Children are not a parent's sole responsibility, they are a shared social responsibility, at least in the parts of the world where we appreciate social support networks, universal healthcare and equitable educational opportunities. We want children to be cared for
About as weak and disputed as saying that the Pope's Turkish, based on the fact that he visited there once.:)
Just looking through a translated romanian somewhat scholarly book on Vlad Tepes beside me here, there's lots of mention of travel through Brasov, and communication with folks, but nothing about hanging around for parties and whatnot. So if we take weak to equal pretty much non-existent except for people who are trying to either pull something, watch too much TV or read unresearched books on vampires, sure. I'm cool with that.
There's no real link between the vampire and vlad. Emily Gerard in an article that stoker read, wrote that Dracula was a Romanian word for the devil. So stoker used it. This is well documented, and Elizabeth Miller, who is finishing up Stoker's notes for the novel for publication, has researched this widely.
As for the castle, there's a good chance that the historical dracula stayed there, but it was never a place he lived in the fort at Poenari IS well documented as his home, but it is a ruin, and far from the tourist routes, and up a 1200 foot climb. So everyone pushes Castle Bran. I'm looking.
My favorite is of course the Castle Dracula Hotel... Just finished up a paper on that one if anyone cares:)
According to CitizenLab the US is the greatest censor of information at the state level, and the software many countries use to censor information is producted and marketted in the US. Shouldn't we be looking in our own backyards first?
random writings/thoughts of millions of nitwits worth reading?
Well, slashdot certainly isn't a solution in that regard. Unless it is by being a nitwit magnet. And that's a good thing...
I was having the same convo in reverse. How the whole slashDot karma circlejerk was getting boring... especially since it is just an new flavor of the Usenet thing, but with greater hierarchy and exclusions in place. And it is so hostile to those who don't think that the word "nerds" applies to them, or can unpack how "stuff that matters" is an in-your-face threat to a newbie who might wonder if his/her stuff matters.
Nice thing about blogs is it is not what the MOB thinks matters, but rather what the individual finds personally important, or wishes to share. It actually has more of that "America is about the Individual" which I usually find to be a problem, but in this case it is preferable to the SlashDot hivemind, which is half popularity contest, and half a 'first off the mark' game.
No, I like hearing grandmothers talk about their day. I like to hear people at the fringes talk about themselves, and I think young people should have a voice. I don't think it is that interesting when a bunch of dot.bombs or next-big-thingites sniff derisively at the world around them and find it not worth engaging in.
Slashdot Mirror
Why believe things you have no context for? If I'm going to read someone's blog, and the blog has only been up for 15 seconds, why would I believe it. IF someone's been blogging for 5 years, and is linked into a network, some of whom I know or know of, the believability will go up. The more viral marketting we get, the better, so the troggs feel stupid about being conned, and they either grow a critical awareness or just head back to the mall. Viruses are spread by people.
I teach about children and technology, so my statement is not strange, but I've always believed that young learners (if they're going to use digital technology at all, which is a different issue) should have the best. In the old days, you'd see a child with a 256 colour display trying to do something using cassette tapes to load programs while we whizzed away with the best stuff. It seemed strange to provde the developing mind with the most limited set of tools when a business exec who never did much with it anyway and the brightest and shiniest. Of course the child is seen as less valuable. My attitude is, and was before I started teaching about childrean and tech., that you give the best [insert variable] to the children to get the best children, and that the best children lead to the best adults. But we give the worst to children. (I've used best and worst for their vague sense of value without specifics to keep with the notion of the article). I don't know if the OLPC project is the best thing for children, though I've been following the topic for longer than this specific project's been around, but they might as well have the best possible security, since the world does such a poor job of keeping them safe in most other categories.
they have a photoshop filter to remove that... and of course, next time you try to return to the US after travel, they'll pull that up on the screen. wheeeeee!
The whole idea of getting a child to trust a bit of software to tell it what's right and wrong should make programers and parents alike cringe. Not to mention anyone who is aware of the uses to which this information can/will be put to in the name of marketting to children, which is bad enough as it is. I wonder how long it will take before children are 'told' that certain sites are better than others, directing them away from sites that don't promote a particular political or corporate agenda. Or that 'controversial' issues somehow fall into the not to be trusted category. When it comes to children and technology, the goal is to educate parents and provide safe opportunities for children online, NOT to fob it off to a bit of software for all the myriad reasons. Just imagine what these children will grow up like when they've just trusted the software from their earliest days. I cringe.
This suing is a great thing, IMHO. Of course parents have a responsibility. And children should be virtually street-proofed. But technologies have to provide those tools to allow for parents to do the best job. And it is too eash for developers to claim neutrality. And it is all to easy to wake them up with recourse to the courts. I have a bias, because I train educators in how to use technology with young children. My personal opinion is that leaving children online without an adult knowing what's going on is a problem. Like leaving them at home with guns before someone got the idea of locked cabinets and saftey, or putting labels on products. I like what Second Life is doing, keeping spaces separate, it a good idea. I reminds me of Amy Bruckman's work with MOOsecrossing at MIT in the 90s. In order for me to have access to a space that had children in, lots of paperwork would need to be done. In real life, to work with children, I have a criminal background check done, as do all my students. Only seems reasonable. SO, how could software and technology help make children safer WHILE encouraging parents to be involved with use? Well there are many options. I would consider requiring some form of identity ID for these sites, but one that protects identity from casual observances, while keeping files that would ensure a contiguous relationship between the person online and the person irl. Personally, I think it is just fine for someone to pretend what they are not. But do they have the right to do so without it being known? What if, for example, a youth under the age of 18 wants to pretend she or he is older. Well, that's well and good. In a blog, it is easy to see through this as soon as you read back on posts and see how the narrative plays out over time. And if not, you know that you're just reading people's stories, not reading them. But this sort of thing doesn't really exist in myspace. It is more of an interactive self-promotional tool. It is a self-marketting space. It is all hype without much space for depth or content. Of course that's why younger folks, with out much depth or content, like it. The mall rather than the library. But, to contextualize the digression, if there was a screen widget that merely flagged someone as 'not what they seem' we could have a mental marker that though we may interact with this individual as per their persona, we would realize the socially constructed nature of that persona. You might not think that this is necessary, because we know that all online identity is constructed, and is at best a filtered representation of the self. But this is learned. And when relative newbies go online and present themselves as they think they are, more like who they want to be seen as, they fall into the trap of seeing others as being as they appear. And a little blinky light identifying people as 'not what they seem' when their online persona differs from their stored data doesn't stop one from identity workshopping, but it does provide a reminder that things are not what they seem. Another interesting possibility would be parental reports. A parent getting a report of who the child has talked to being made available, not necessarily what is said, but that something was said. I had this experience where I was conversing with a very young family member. I let it be known that though I would respect this individual's privacy, if anything went wrong or I thought this persona's health or saftey was compromised, I would inform parents and authorities. That sense of 'pretty good privacy' to re-purpose the term, is what I'm speaking towards. Respecting the social rights of children to communicate, but recognize that online communication should have a monitoring feature that keeps track of who is talking to whom, when children are involved. Children are not a parent's sole responsibility, they are a shared social responsibility, at least in the parts of the world where we appreciate social support networks, universal healthcare and equitable educational opportunities. We want children to be cared for
Ya, I'm going there this may as part of a conference in dracula's home town of sigishoara. I've been to romania before but not poenari.
About as weak and disputed as saying that the Pope's Turkish, based on the fact that he visited there once. :)
Just looking through a translated romanian somewhat scholarly book on Vlad Tepes beside me here, there's lots of mention of travel through Brasov, and communication with folks, but nothing about hanging around for parties and whatnot. So if we take weak to equal pretty much non-existent except for people who are trying to either pull something, watch too much TV or read unresearched books on vampires, sure. I'm cool with that.
There's no real link between the vampire and vlad. Emily Gerard in an article that stoker read, wrote that Dracula was a Romanian word for the devil. So stoker used it. This is well documented, and Elizabeth Miller, who is finishing up Stoker's notes for the novel for publication, has researched this widely. As for the castle, there's a good chance that the historical dracula stayed there, but it was never a place he lived in the fort at Poenari IS well documented as his home, but it is a ruin, and far from the tourist routes, and up a 1200 foot climb. So everyone pushes Castle Bran. I'm looking. My favorite is of course the Castle Dracula Hotel... Just finished up a paper on that one if anyone cares :)
According to CitizenLab the US is the greatest censor of information at the state level, and the software many countries use to censor information is producted and marketted in the US. Shouldn't we be looking in our own backyards first?
random writings/thoughts of millions of nitwits worth reading? Well, slashdot certainly isn't a solution in that regard. Unless it is by being a nitwit magnet. And that's a good thing...
I was having the same convo in reverse. How the whole slashDot karma circlejerk was getting boring... especially since it is just an new flavor of the Usenet thing, but with greater hierarchy and exclusions in place. And it is so hostile to those who don't think that the word "nerds" applies to them, or can unpack how "stuff that matters" is an in-your-face threat to a newbie who might wonder if his/her stuff matters.
Nice thing about blogs is it is not what the MOB thinks matters, but rather what the individual finds personally important, or wishes to share. It actually has more of that "America is about the Individual" which I usually find to be a problem, but in this case it is preferable to the SlashDot hivemind, which is half popularity contest, and half a 'first off the mark' game.
No, I like hearing grandmothers talk about their day. I like to hear people at the fringes talk about themselves, and I think young people should have a voice. I don't think it is that interesting when a bunch of dot.bombs or next-big-thingites sniff derisively at the world around them and find it not worth engaging in.
When it comes to referencing CERT stuff, and computer security, yep. No sense of humour there.
Thanks for the heads up on the CERT and SANS, but it would have been even nicer if you'd included a url. ...off to hunk the snark.