Hacking Your Personal Information- Easier Than You May Think

According to the New York Times article “New Hacking Tools Pose Bigger Threats to Wi-Fi Users,” hacking one’s personal information is easier than one may think. A new, free program called Firesheep now allows people to see what other users of an unsecured Wi-Fi network are doing and then log on as them at the sites they visited. This program grabs Web browser’s cookies, bits of code that identifies your computer, and is able to get your settings and other private information from the site. This allows users to be you on the site and have full access to your account.

The scary thing about this program is that it is so easy to use, and general members of the public are not taking precautions to protect themselves. Firesheep is more popular than people may think, more than a million people have downloaded the program in the past three months. Fortunately, sites that employ the cryptographic protocol Transport Layer Security are safe from the snoopers. PayPal and many banks use this feature, but most other sites that people trust with their information to do use this privacy safeguard. Web sites state that they do no encrypt all of their information because it will slow down the site and carries a large expense.

To protect yourself, change the Service Set Identifier or SSID of your wireless network from the default name to something less predictable. It is also recommended that people not use public Wi-Fi. I think it is important for the public to have knowledge of such programs and to take the proper precautions necessary to avoid identity theft.

Trading Cities for Computers: A New Breed of Flaneur in the Digital Age

A wide-eyed kid steps out of a yellow taxi onto the bustling streets of New York. He/She bumps past the hotdog venders and newspaper stands as they look up at the alluring skyscrapers. This tourist is one of two people: the kid with big dreams to make an impact in the city, or the flaneur who wishes to soak up the sites and vaporize into the streets. Now, replace the taxi and sidewalks with a mouse and keyboard. Switch the hotdog carts and newspaper stands with popup ads, and exchange the skyscrapers with today’s top websites and social networks. Finally replace the city that never sleeps with the never-ending labyrinth of 1’s and 0’s we call the Internet. While the World Wide Web is a Mecca for those who wish to create or recreate their identity, it has also become a destination for the modern day flaneur. However, like the new breed of idle Las Vegas strollers analyzed by Kurt Borchard in his paper, “From Flanerie to Psuedo-Flanerie: The Postmodern Tourist in Las Vegas," Internet surfers have broken with traditional flaneur values and should too be classified as “pseudo-flaneurs.”
We have discussed how the Internet allows one to stay constantly connected, saturating oneself in social worlds and information. However, another side to the Internet exists: the hidden and faceless surfers that use the Web for observation rather than interaction. The term “flaneur” arose in industrialized post-revolution France in the mid 1800’s. A flaneur is a blasé, idle observer; one who is in the crowd but not of it. He/she is unseen but observers his/her environment, experiencing without acting as a consumer. Sites such as StumbleUpon.com and Facebook allow users to experience their world while remaining an unobserved observer. Drawn to the anonymity afforded by the Internet, many have swapped strolling city streets for idly surfing the Internet.
The original flaneur walked the streets or sat in a café, soaking up their world and watching the passers by. Today, he/she sits behind a desk and does the same thing. The difference is that instead of disappearing into the city, he/she fades into chatrooms and social networks; “mov[ing] through [cyber]space and among the people with a viscosity that both enables and privileges vision” (Chris Jenks-Watching Your Step: The History and Practice of the Flaneur p.152). This new observer experiences the world in a blasé and passive manor, watching videos on YouTube and admiring nature through Google Images or NationalGeographic.com. The term “flaneur” does not simply refer to physical acts, but to a mindset and way of life. The cyberflaneur breaks this mindset by consuming actions associated with true flaneurs; he/she is an active participant on the Internet and buys into the system.
While the Internet flaneur (or iFlaneur) shares many similarities with the traditional flaneur, he/she does not truly earn the label. In his paper, Borchard describes how tourists in Las Vegas are not true flaneurs for a number of reasons. These same reasons reveal that the iFlaneur is a pseudo-flaneur as well. First, like the Vegas tourist, they are not truly experiencing their surroundings but simply admiring “simulacra,” copies of the real things such as online pictures and videos. The Vegas tourist “wander[s] from one impersonation of a city/culture/era to another” (Borchard). Second, Borchard points out that the true flaneur is never a consumer; he/she is simply an observer. However, one must buy into the Las Vegas experience which makes one a consumer of “practices traditionally associated with flaneurs” (Borchard). In much the same way, the iFlaneur strolls the cyber world, which is structured by “surveillance, social control, and the organizing principles of capitalism” (Borchard), all of which undermine the core of flanerie. Finally, one cannot remain an unobserved observer in Vegas or online as their structures ensure that one's actions are always being watched and monitored.
A new breed of pseudo-flaneur flocks to its computers to “stalk” others on Facebook, follow people on Twitter, and visit foreign cities or events through pictures and websites. The Internet, while seeming to be a paradise for the unobserved observer, undermines the principles of the true flaneur. While it may be impossible to be a non-consuming, unseen wanderer while surfing online, the iFlaneur does not seem concerned. With unlimited options and places to experience, the Internet may have rendered the true flaneur obsolete, ushering in the era of the iFlaneur.

Taking Anonymity Too Far?

We've been hearing a lot of arguments about the benefits and deficits of anonymity online. Personally, I believe that benefits like being able to freely talk about personal problems, ask questions without the fear of being judged, and easily make all different types of new friends outweigh the negatives. However, there's always a group of people that takes things to the extreme. In terms of embracing and reveling in anonymity online, there is nobody who has taken this to such as an extreme as the infamous Anonymous.

Anonymous are a group of "hacktivists" (people who use hacking/cleaver usage of computers as a means to promote a political goal) who hide behind the mask of the Internet, as well as their symbolic Guy Fawkes masks (first seen in the movie V for Vendetta) to express their opinions. These people basically come together through the 4chan Internet community, which is an anonymous imageboard website that I have heard eloquently described by friends as a "condensation of the cesspool that is the internet". 4chan is extremely good at banding together for a cause, whether that is locating an image of a chart you vaguely remember seeing once in a text book, populating the latest meme, or launching an assault against human rights violators.

One of the most notable things Anonymous done is its crusade against the Church of Scientology. It all began as a little quibble over an video uploaded onto YouTube that the Church asked to have removed, and Anonymous insisted removing it would infringe upon free speech. This evolved into a war against the Scientologists for "exploiting church members and limiting free speech". They organized a series of attacks through the internet. Some of these carried over into the real world, manifesting as actual protests spurred by videos like this, causing over 7,000 protesters to gather worldwide on two occasions. While the merits of this particular agenda can be debated, they sometimes do have truly good intentions.

To cite a timely example, 4chan have been standing up for the Tunisian people. Together, they launched attacks on Tunisian government websites and even managed to post this message of warning ending in:

We are Anonymous.
We are the angry avatar of free speech.
We are the immune system of democracy.
We do not forgive censorship.
We do not forget free speech.
Expect us - always.

This looks philanthropic and lovely, but they also have a sick, anti-society side. Their 4chan roots show and they uphold the "cesspool" qualities the website is famous for. Many people were quite disturbed, for example, on May 20, 2009 when YouTube was flooded with uploads of porn. Often, it was disguised as a family or kid-friendly video. While they claimed to be doing this as a response to the removal of some music videos, I think that they just wanted to show off their power by pulling off something abhorrent.

I think that as long as Anonymous don't get so radical that they begin blurring the lines between activism and terrorism, it is probably good to have a group of people out there who is organized enough to speak against wrongdoings with a single, powerful voice. I'll pose the question to you, though: champions of human rights, or ne'er-do-well hackers with too much time on their hands?

Gender and Online Forums

Anonymity is a central aspect of the Internet and the constant connectivity it affords. By identifying oneself by an ambiguous handle and a made-up avatar, one can escape prejudices and discrimination based on appearances, race, and gender. However, some of these aspects of identity are manifested in behaviors that cannot be easily hidden by a unisex user name.

This is illustrated by a New York Times report analyzing recent demographic studies by Wikipedia. The survey revealed that approximately 87 percent of the people who edit Wikipedia are men. The Times article cites experts who explain this gender gap as a result of "an ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a [hard-driving hacker] culture that may discourage women," or as a result of "women [being] less willing to assert their opinions in public." The former theory implies that diversity is actually discouraged in free-form internet forums simply because it is a goal that "real-world" institutions often promote. The latter suggests that even when people are freed from their identities online, their personalities still dictate their actions.

Catherine Orenstein with the OpEd Project (an initiative to increase diversity in media), another expert consulted by the Times, also addresses gender identity. She attributes the Internet taciturnity of women to their tendency to focus on themselves as individuals, rather than the worldly value of their knowledge, when posting information to public forums. She offers the example of self confidence: "'do I know enough, am I bragging?'" This would suggest that men are more likely to share their knowledge with less concern about what others will think of them. Conflicts such as this are personality features correlated with gender that are still evident on the Internet.

Congruently, 2010 study in Information, Communication & Society found that although women often appreciate the value of anonymity to conceal gender, they feel that it is "associated with feelings of distance and barriers to effective communication" (Martey 1222), which seems to be a feminine social concern. Martey also cites 2002 research by Postmes and Spears which concluded that "gender identity and roles, even in anonymity contexts, can influence perceptions of both the self and of others" (1221). This implies that gender does indeed result in differentiated online behavior.

This correlatiom is also reflected in some older data about words commonly used by male and female bloggers. The statistics indicate that women often write about their personal lives, as evidenced by the high frequencies of the words "husband" and "mom." Men are more likely to write about politics ("democracy") or technology ("Linux"). This demonstrates a similar principle. The topics about which the writer is expected to have expertise are generally left to male bloggers, and more free-form, personal topics are dominated by female bloggers. The results of a similar study in 2010, presented graphically, indicate this gender gap has not closed much since 2007, when the statistics were collected. The Wikipedia study is further proof.

This raises some interesting questions about how gender differences on public online forums will change in the future. Perhaps people will start behaving differently online in order to make the anonymity more complete, widening the rift between Internet and "real-life" personalities. This would increase the degree of homogenization of Internet-mediated communications, but also continue to allow people to overcome prejudices and discrimination.

The other side of this is that people might begin to use linguistic or behavioral cues to break down the barriers of anonymity. For instance, a cyberbully might learn to identify female users by the way they word messages or strategize in online games and make sexist comments to hurt them. This is an obvious negative effect, but maintaining gender identity online would have benefits as well.

Any path that Internet culture takes seems unpredictable, evincing a mixture of positive and negative effects. This is why it is so interesting and scary to watch social evolution within and around burgeoning forms of technology.

Online Identities: Opening the Door for Friends and Bullies

There was once a time when you played with who ever was on the playground. When the world extended only as far as the tan bark and you had to find self-validation in your fellow classmates. That time has been long forgotten as today’s youth now turns to a much higher power in their search for identity and acceptance. The power of the Internet has allowed people to find support for any aspect of their identity, and it has been a godsend for those who have recreated themselves via social networks. In the true spirit of postmodernism, many have begun to blur the borders of the self, abandoning the idea of a consistent self for online identities and profiles. These online avatars are worn and shed like clothes (Allison et al). However, the Internet has also given way to a new breed of bully that preys on the exposed and more sensitive parts of people’s identities.

The PBS documentary, Growing up Online (on reserve in Shields) shows teens who have used the Internet to find their niche and to locate others who support them. This affirmation can be beneficial as a depressed boy can receive much needed support or an adopted girl can find solace in others sharing her pain. On the other hand, some of the interviews in the documentary reveal darker forms of support. One girl found an online community of other anorexic teens that support her disorder, encouraging her to eat less and be skinnier. For better or worse, affirmation is now just a click away as individuals from across the world can band together.

The anonymity afforded by the Internet has acted as a stepping-stone for the shy or socially challenged. What you could not say on the playground you can say online. Jumping at the promise of affirmation, many have begun to express what they where afraid to, uploading parts of themselves onto the Internet. Psychologists have begun to utilize this in therapy for those with Asperger’s Syndrome. Although being constantly connected can help a shy individual break out of their shell, it also opens the door for bullies to get in and directly attack aspects of a person’s identity.

In his dissertation, William Woolley found that there is a statistically significant link between schoolyard bullies and cyberbullies. The Internet does not mutate a person into a bully, but acts as a force multiplier, giving new powers to an old bully. This new breed of bully is devastating, and unlike the schoolyard bully, it does not stop at the end of recess or even at the end of class.

The Internet can expose vulnerable aspects of individuals on an extremely public stage. What makes this worse is that many have voluntarily put parts of them selves up for everyone to see and attack. In his book, The Saturated Self, Kenneth J. Gergen argues that traditional ideas of a concrete identity have given way to the dissolution of the self in Postmodernism. We no longer cling to a constant identity but play different roles, breaking our selves up into online profiles. As Turkle, a 19-year-old mentioned in “The Development of the self in the Era of the internet and Role-Playing Fantasy Games” (Allison et al) put it: “you can have a sense of self without being one self.” By posting these parts of our identity online, one invites others in, and runs the risk of having ones secrets and self critiqued on a permanent and global stage.

The Postmodern dissolution of the self onto the Internet has proved a double-edged sword. Individuals can now seek affirmation for any aspect of their identity and have opened up in order to do this. However, cyberbullies can target these presented parts of people’s identities and do devastating psychological and social damage. This begs a few questions: Why are the assaults on our online identities so devastating if Internet avatars are seen as roles, personas we can don and shed? Why is cyber bullying seen as a more rampant and extreme problem if Woolley is correct that the Internet does not create a bully?

Anonymity in Cyberspace: Faceless Cage-Fighting from the Safety of Your Home?

Last week, 17-year-old Kayla, a girl from my theatre community in my hometown, stood up on stage and “came out” to her high school at an all-school assembly. She did not do this just to inform the world that she was gay; in a powerful and touching speech, she cracked open the taboos and barricades surrounding the acceptance of gay teens and gay marriage. Kayla’s speech was heartfelt and brave as she spoke about a personal subject that is very controversial. Kayla’s words were not confined to the time and space of the assembly, however; a video of her speech was posted on Youtube.

I was one of the very first people to watch the video on Youtube. I immediately posted the video onto my Facebook to share it with all of my online friends. By the end of the day, thirty of my friends had reposted the video. After three days, all of our friends and many friends of friends had seen the video. After six days, almost everyone in my hometown had seen or at least heard of Kayla’s speech. It was the talk of the town. It did not stop there; after a week, the video went beyond the boundaries of people who know Kayla: the video went viral.

Before the video went viral, the comment section was full of friend and family’s support, love, and admiration. As the video began to spread, complete strangers praised her words, her bravery, and her message. The upheaval of positive support was enormous. Yesterday, however, as the video reached 16,000 views since it was posted last Monday, some anonymous person wrote a short and hateful comment violently opposing not just the girl’s argument, but also the girl and everyone who supported her. There was an instant outcry against this comment, and things immediately got messy: the comment forum exploded into a battleground against this negative comment. It was like Pandora’s box had been cracked open: everyone began hashing out their opinions against the offender in a brusque manner. A few more rude and negative comments against Kayla’s argument appeared. These negative comments sparked angry and sometimes equally hurtful responses. Even the people who were against the comment were violent in the way the dealt with and answered the original offender. 

The conversations soon escalated into branched-out cyberspace fights, and soon a large majority of the conversation threads on the comment page no longer had anything to do with the actual video. Instead, every few seconds new comments would appear to bash apart a previous commentator. The majority of the people shooting angry comments back and forth did not even make an effort to censor what they were saying by trying to be polite and reasonable. Those that tried to do this initially quickly became incensed by the “ignorance” or unwillingness for the offender to see their point of view.

I was left wondering: what on Earth made it all right for people to brawl in such an undignified way on a public forum? Part of the answer, without a doubt, is the veil of anonymity cloaking a person to the point where they find themselves at liberty to say whatever they please, no matter how insensitive, hurtful or extreme. The comment section for Kayla’s video has turned into a bitter brawl as angry comments are flung back and forth between completely anonymous people. These people stopped arguing about the video and started openly insulting each other with profanities and accusations, most of which have nothing to do with any of the issues presented in Kayla's argument. 

What does this say about the power of anonymity in such a public forum? It allows people to say violent things that they would never say in person. Yet from the safety of their perch behind their computer screen, a person can say anything that they please and distance themselves emotionally from the repercussions their words might cause.

As of this afternoon, the video has jumped from the 16,000 views it had yesterday to a whopping 70,000 hits. Since this morning, over 600 comments have accumulated in the comment forum. Watching a video spread so rapidly and generate such a large response is an eye-opening vision of the strange functions of this modern world of cyberspace. It leaves me with these questions: is it OK to argue in this uncivilized, potentially hurtful way on a public forum? Or has the internet reduced human disagreements into faceless cage-fighting from the safety of your home?