Thoughts on Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is the idea that all information on the internet should be treated equally in terms of pricing and availability. In other words, all information should be provided to all users at the same price regardless of what sites they're attempting to access, or who the user is.

Some of the pros of Net Neutrailty are that users are able to access the information they desire without being charged more simply because they are trying to access a certain site or are using a certain platform to navigate with. This allows for more of an open market with web surfing and the promotion of competition. As a web user, it has been greatly beneficial for me that various companies offer things like different types of competing web browsers (IE, FireFox, Safari, Chrome, etc). This enhances the users experience by allowing the user to use whichever platform suites them best. Net Neutrality is also advantageous for giving people more freedom of which sites they choose to navigate to without the concern of being discriminately charged for doing so. This type of freedom of information is no doubt advantageous.

However, I can also see some of the cons that might come with Net Neutrality. For example, if a particular user is constantly streaming videos and things that require more bandwidth and stress the end server out more, than it might make more sense that that person should pay more for their usage. The same principle can be seen with phone companies and the coverage they provide, if you use a certain amount of data, you pay a certain price. Another con of Net Neutrality is that some content is very hard and  time consuming to produce, so perhaps charging more for it would make more sense. If Net Neutrality were to be implemented, there would be no incentive for that website to continue to publish that information that is hard to produce because they would receive little gain from it. Surely certain computers and platforms are more difficult to accommodate so I can also see the justification of those companies charging more for their usage.

Net Neutrality has been in the news lately with the FCC and Netflix/Comcast. Netflix has been claiming that Comcast  is supporting lower net neutrality and after a new ruling, the FCC's net neutrality rules have been diminished so much controversy has arisen since. Netflix has since paid the ISP Comcast but was not happy about it, warning that they will resist actions from ISP's charging more for streaming or to avoid service degradation.

I believe net neutrality can be compared to free speech because the internet is a means of expression and many people share their ideas and thoughts on it so it can be argued that it shouldn't be censored or restricted. Freedom of speech and net neutrality go hand in hand.

The recent news about net neutrality affects me because as an avid web user it is a constant concern of mine that prices may be raised and content  restricted. I also own an apartment and have to pay the ISP Comcast for my internet so I am directly affected by that. It often annoys me the price I already pay to Comcast and the terribly slow and poor service they provide. This is also a growing concern for people like me who reside on a college campus where ISP alternatives are scarce and Comcast essentially has a monopoly.  Hopefully net neutrality can remain for the greater good of web users.

I personally like the idea of Net Neutrality because as I have previously stated, it promotes competition and that usually benefits consumers such as myself. I also don't like the idea of low net neutrality because it would give certain companies the opportunity to really price gouge people who have few alternatives for ISP's. I also think the internet is a wonderful tool for people to educate themselves with and it would be terribly unfortunate for it to be restricted because of pricing.

An interesting read about how freedom and net neutrality are related.  This article sheds some light on the potential for ISP's to abuse the looser net neutrality rules. More interesting articles can be found on this website which discusses net neutrality in great detail.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2014/03/05/our-rights-shouldnt-come-expiration-date

If you're like myself and would prefer to watch a video vs read a wordy article, feast your eyes on the video below to clarify net neutrality if you still quite don't understand it. Mr Valdes has been used before in class lectures so we know hes a credible source.
http://mashable.com/2014/02/26/mashable-explains-net-neutrality/

Social Media and Privacy

Social Media can certainly be used to aide a great deal of people in finding justice for certain crimes. Whether it's simply making more people aware of a growing concern, or used to identify a criminal,it certainly has its benefits. However, when I see stories of 'Rape gone Viral'  or the latest beat down video on World-star, it makes me sick to my stomach. People share these stories and find entertainment at others expenses and never consider the repercussions of these videos being posted online. As if it weren't bad enough to be the victim of such a horrendous crime, to have everybody on the internet have access to the video and even the victims identities is saddening. Although I can't personally say this has happened to me, I do know a good friend who has been the victim of a similar crime, and saw the painful after effects. After a video of her getting jumped was posted online, it quickly made it's way to various Blogs and social media outlets. While other people got a real kick out of the whole ordeal, I saw her enter a deep depression and even transfer schools due to the sheer embarrassment brought on by the video not only being published but going viral. 

Imagine having your name associated with a video of you getting assaulted and finding peoplenot sympathizing   with you, but instead laughing at it. Not only do your peers have access to such a video, but also family members, future employers, etc. All these videos do is provide a painful reminder of that unfortunate incident, interfering with the victims ability to move past it. First of all, I would hope that such a crime would not be committed in the first place. But most of all, I would hope that if someone were to witness such an event, that instead of filming the ordeal they would instead help the victim. Technology enables us to inform authorities and even take a picture of the assaulters but more often than not these videos are simply posted to their respective media pages so they can get a few likes and be momentarily popular. I wish that the people who compromise others identity after horrific events such as assault or rape, would pause and think about what would/will happen to that victim once that information is released. After all, everything that's posted to the internet can never be deleted so discretion is certainly advisable. 

Nothing to Hide

Although I would agree that I don't necessarily have anything to hide, that doesn't mean I like people looking. I believe in this day and age technology allows people to dig much deeper into your personal life than most people would believe. I don't have any incriminating photos of myself or inappropriate comments/ statuses, but again, I would rather not have that information accessed by most of the public. As a junior who is currently seeking summer internships, I know that many companies do searches on potential candidates so I try to keep my online image clean. However, as demonstrated in the in class film the other day, Government, Businesses, and even average tech savvy people are able to access a large amount of information. Some information I don't necessarily care about, but things such as my financial status, personal preferences, and even information as to where I am and where I live which I believe should not be accessible in my opinion. I worry that if this information where to get into the wrong hands that it could possibly have dire consequences. I could potentially have my identity stolen or if someone wished to do me harm, they could find my or my families whereabouts. It is important to me that I still have my own privacy and that whatever I share on social media with my friends, or even my emails addressed to a specific participant, should remain exclusive to that group.

While I am adamant on having my own online privacy, I do understand that much of this monitoring is for the safety of the nation (Which I support). However, I would question some of the practices of some corporations selling this information the way Facebook does. I think it was wrong of Mr Zuckerburg to comply with the CIA and release these records to the government. They were trusted with peoples personal information and simply handed all of that over without any question of whether or not it was morally right to do so. Perhaps the most troubling thing about that was the fact that they did not notify anyone about this release of information. I know if I were warned of this impending action, I would have deleted my Facebook before any records were made of it. I respected Twitter and their handling of their similar situation. They at least notified certain people that the Gov was attempting to pursue them and gave them an opportunity to take down their account or delete their posts about whistleblowing activities.

First Blog Test

This is an interesting read about the the future of computing; including also the possibility of computer chips in the human brain. What do you readers think about this?

http://www.infowars.com/a-chip-in-the-head-brain-implants-will-be-connecting-people-to-the-internet-by-the-year-2020/