DIGITAL AMERICA

Tag: War


4chan anonymous copyright counterculture culture democracy digital digital america digital culture digital divide Education Facebook Google Government hackers hacking Information Please Innovation internet IPhone Julian Assange Mark Poster Mexico Netizen new media NSA Obama Occupy Online Activism politics Privacy snowden social awareness social media SOPA Stuxnet Tec de Monterrey technology Ted Talks Turkle Twitter USA WikiLeaks wired youtube

Becoming Numb to Information?

// Posted by on 02/26/2013 (7:28 PM)

An interesting question was brought up during class that compared the reactions of the public to people such as Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange in different time periods. Ellsberg was responsible for the leak of the PentagonRead more

+
0

An interesting question was brought up during class that compared the reactions of the public to people such as Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange in different time periods. Ellsberg was responsible for the leak of the Pentagon Papers, while Assange is the creator and public face of the highly controversial Wikileaks web page. In 1971  Ellsberg handed over copies of controversial and top secret documents that Ellsburg said,  ”demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates”.  He gave them to the New York Times and they started publishing documents that proved that government officials were purposely concealing the truth about the Vietnam war and how bad the situation really was. This document was immensely important when it was published, as the Vietnam war was already a highly protested war these papers only added fuel to the fire. It is interesting to compare the impact of this leak to the impact of Wikileaks today. Wikileaks is a website that obtains official classified government documents from anonymous sources, with Julian Assange being the figure head of the website. Wikileaks claims to have millions of classified documents that it is waiting to release at a time of their choosing. Even though they claim to have mass amounts of classified material, interest in the site is dwindling.

Why is Wikileaks, with all its classified documents waiting to be published, not making a bigger impact in the world today? Compared to the pentagon papers Wikileaks is not as influential even though it contains multiple times the classified information that the pentagon papers had. I believe that this lack of interest in Wikileaks is due to a changing of culture. When the pentagon papers were published it was front page of all the newspapers of the time as this was the only way information was available to the public. I believe a lack of technology is actually the reason why the pentagon papers made such a massive impact. People did not have all the resources that are available today so when some new information was presented to the public they ate it up. This need for information from newspapers has changed as the digital world evolved. Now people are overrun with information, from email, internet, television, and social networks, people are constantly being fed information. I believe that because of this plethora of information available today the public is numb to internet leaks like the ones provided by Wikileaks.

It may seem counter intuitive to say that people receive less information today than they did in the time of the pentagon papers, and it may be. However I believe that people of this day and age pick and choose what information makes an impact on their lives. With pop culture expanding I believe that people are more interested in the latest trends and celebrity gossip then a government document that has little to no impact on their lives. Some argue that Wikileaks is not as influential as it could be due to the antics of Julian Assange, who is currently being accused of sexual assault. While this may have some impact on the website I believe the true reason behind a reduced interest is  a numbing of the public to information, due the the sheer amount of information that is available right at their fingertips.

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
+

Modern Warfare

// Posted by on 02/25/2013 (8:38 PM)

Thinking back about a discussion in class about the modern age and warfare. We read an article on Stuxnet which showed us that there was a cyberattack on Iran by the US government. Also, reading back on different WikiLeaks… Read more

+
0

Thinking back about a discussion in class about the modern age and warfare. We read an article on Stuxnet which showed us that there was a cyberattack on Iran by the US government. Also, reading back on different WikiLeaks articles it made me think more about if countries go into war with each other, what will the war look like, is it old fashioned fought by the military or is it maybe more fought online?

The Stuxnet article showed that nowadays people can actually get into machine systems by the internet. Both have different coding, however people found a way to get into the system by a virus which used a zero-day exploit to spread. So, if it is possible to manipulate a working machine, in this case centrifuges that were enriching uranium, do we still need physical troops to go to the country? In the case of Stuxnet they did have an insider in Iran which delivered the virus via USB. Then still it would be possible to just send one guy undercover instead of troops.

Even if it might be possible that wars will be fought via the Net, there is still the terorrism threat. The Internet is nowadays also often used by extremist groups who starts forums in which they can express their opinions and hope to find other extremists. One of these forums, the Shumukh forum, which is one of the major jihadist forums, say that there is a conspiracy to destroy Syria. The countries involved in this will be the US, Iran and Israel. It predicts that everyone will be exhausted, all weapons will be destroyed and  civilization will go back to the time of Stone Age. If this is true, it means that instead of a cyber war the alliance of US, Iran and Israel will actually have an intervention to destroy Assad’s regime.

Interesting to see is that the Stuxnet mission was from the US government who tried to stop Iran’s nuclear plant, and this mission was actually intervened by different antivirus experts who worked together to actually stop the virus and thereby going against the US government. Thus on a cyberlevel, different countries can work together easily by getting experts to work out of their home, which also shows that boundaries actually vanish in this cyberworld. Now it was against one government, but what if on both side multiple countries join..

The article about the intervention in Syria, shows that even though there is the use of the internet by these different extremist groups, countries still think about getting their physical troops involved. I would think that maybe in the modern age the internet or just computers in general will be a way in which countries will be able to intervene in their local politics. Looking back at WikiLeaks, government secrets leaked so other countries knew about their plans, their secrets and other issues that were going on. If every country knows about the government plans and ideas of other countries it seems like there will be a world in which everybody knows what will happen.

Will this increase a threat of global warfare, or will it remove any threats. Governments know then that whatever they plan, will be out in the open..

 


Categories: Discussion
Tags: , , , ,
+

The Honest News?

// Posted by on 02/28/2012 (11:26 PM)

Wiki-leaks creator Julian Assange has been under heavy fire the past few years with his honest posts about what is truly going on in the world. The website has been criticized and governments have attempted to shut it down but… Read more

+
3

Wiki-leaks creator Julian Assange has been under heavy fire the past few years with his honest posts about what is truly going on in the world. The website has been criticized and governments have attempted to shut it down but it stays strong. Is there a reason? Assange believes so.

Early this month Phylicia posted about how America receives watered down news in comparison to other countries and its true. Like Assange says Wiki-leaks is a site where you can get true information about things that are happening that we are not being told. Some may say that there is a reason we aren’t being told, that its to protect us or the people it involves, but shouldn’t it be our decision? This can also be tied to our discussion on the war in the Middle East. Although we know we are in a war, we don’t really know why we are there or what is actually going on, Wiki-leaks gives us actual information and gives us the option of knowing what is going on.

So is Wiki-leaks something that needs to stick around or to governments have the right idea in trying to shut it down?


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
+

Why We Support.

// Posted by on 02/25/2012 (2:53 PM)

After watching the documentary Why We Fight by Eugene Jarecki, I realized that the film was missing something very important. Why we support. The average everyday Americans aren’t fighting in the Iraq War nor… Read more

+
2

After watching the documentary Why We Fight by Eugene Jarecki, I realized that the film was missing something very important. Why we support. The average everyday Americans aren’t fighting in the Iraq War nor have we ever been. We go through our daily routines, with the war far from our minds. Unless you know someone in the war or work in some way to supply or fund the war, you don’t think about what’s going on. The documentary in some ways turned against the war, because at this moment we don’t know what we are fighting for; so what’s the reason we are fighting? And while that makes a valid point, there are over 100,000 American troops in the Middle East fighting for our freedom because that is what they are told to do.

They are not allowed to question what they are doing; they don’t even have the time to. They are busy protecting themselves and their companies. Their goal isn’t to win a war, it’s to get home safe and alive. So, we turn against it because we don’t agree with why we’re fighting? Weapons are continually getting more advanced and the United States feels this is a reason for them to show off their muscles. Is it becoming less of a war based on an actual cause and more of a war based on making sure no one will challenge the United States again? We have bombs that are guided by GPS coordinates, guns that can hit over a mile away, and robot technology that basically does the fighting for us.

But those are all definitions to why we might be fighting. Not to why we support. We support because there are over two million soldiers in the armed forces, and over one third of these soldiers are in active duty. We support because they are Americans. They are average everyday Americans that made a choice to fight for what they believed was right, the least we could do is support. We support for the families they left behind, for the injured who return, and for the ones who don’t come back at all.

There’s nothing wrong with asking the question of why we’re fighting. It’s a reasonable and needed question. But that doesn’t mean you can support the soldiers who are fighting for you. So next time someone asks you about the war, what will you say? Will you comment on how we don’t have a reason to be there? Will you talk about how the United States is trying to show off? Or will you simply say I don’t agree with why we’re there, but I support the men and women who are fighting for our freedoms?


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
+