I don`t understand computers. I can turn it on, play solitaire and listen to music, and on a good day, surf the net. I am terrified of doing anything that may harm either my computer`s ability to do stuff for me, or my stuff on it. I have nothing of great importance there, only a few essays and presentations I`ll never look at again, but all the same, it`s one of the things I dread the most is losing all my useless information. So the protect myself against this I have my already annoying vista security futures set to the highest, it`s getting to the point where (I`m no fun any more... kidding) it`s starting to doubt whether or not it`s a legitimate source. So I think you`ll find it understandable why I can figure out why someone who`s life`s work is computers and whose life is on his computer would risk something as foolish as an open wireless network!!
I`ll admit, that as the most techno-savvy person in my family, I did set up the wireless network at my house, I insisted (rather rudely I`m sure) to the nice Indian man on the phone that it me as secure as possible, I didn`t care if I had to type in four passwords, it was going to be dammed sheltered! I regret this decision now.
I love people who leave their wireless networks open, especially in residence where it nice to be able to study with more than two people in a room, or worse in the designated study rooms with tables in the middle and internet jacks on the walls, too far for the Mac prescribed internet cable to reach. But I`ve always believed them to be fools, I mean, if I was better with computers, as many people my age are, I could easily access a plethora of personal information off a person`s wireless internet. Then i started thinking, well if their grabbing information from my computer, what stopping me (aside from my serious lack of skill) from doing the same to them while they are connected to my network? I could, as Bruce Schneier suggests, screw with them, flip website upside down make a pop up or Rick Astley come up every time they try to connect. (sorry this one isn’t imbedded)
http://internetisseriousbusiness.com
(sorry, I had to)
If everyone left their networks open I think a situation very similar to that described in Technology and the Circumpolar Village, where one could access information about another person and form opinions about said person without ever having met them. This is dangerous because with open network people can access things with may be of no interest to you, but may therefore reflect poorly on you. The most shocking example being of course child pornography. If the police find that such thing have been downloaded through you’re network, then the argument of “it’s an open network” is weak at best.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Human Rights
I found the MacLean’s article; I prefer living with space lizards, by Mark Steyn to be a skilled piece of slanted media. Although I do agree that the Human Rights Commission is an, at best, severely flawed process, I noticed that throughout the article, the issue of why the Human Rights complaints were being brought against MacLean’s, while the politics of the complainants where discussed.
In Norman Fairclough’s Language and Power, he discusses how “language contributes to the domination of some people by others”, it seems to me that Steyn is trying to evoke sympathy in his readers by claiming that the complainants in his Human Rights case have managed to get a strong hold on the Canadian media, and therefore have more sway than even him.
I simply can`t believe this. He got plenty of coverage in the media. There was this segment on the Nation which vehemently backs him up, and for that matter, trashes the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The Canadian Human Right Commission defines the purpose its most sacred document; the Canadian Human Rights Act, as “to ensure equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination, in areas under federal jurisdiction. The idea behind the Act is that people should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because of their age, sex, race or any other of the 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination covered by the Act.” Those 11 “prohibited grounds” you might ask? And I would oblige; they are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex (including pregnancy and childbirth), sexual orientation, marital status, family status, mental or physical disability (including previous or present drug or alcohol dependence) and pardoned conviction.
Going further into the article, Steyn discusses a case where a restaurant owner asked a person smoking medicinal marijuana to leave the front of his restaurant. I see how someone could pull a Human Rights complaint out of that, but have to ask whether or not the owner could as well? Is it not a basic human right to a clean and healthy environment? Well, then why should the restaurant owner and all of his customers from that date for that matter, not file complaints against the person smoking marijuana? Partly because that is not what the Human Rights Commission deals with, but also because who would the media side with? That one person with some terrible illness requiring medicinal marijuana who just to go out for dinner, or that mod who labelled them a stoner?
Fairclough, Norman. " Language and Power."
In Norman Fairclough’s Language and Power, he discusses how “language contributes to the domination of some people by others”, it seems to me that Steyn is trying to evoke sympathy in his readers by claiming that the complainants in his Human Rights case have managed to get a strong hold on the Canadian media, and therefore have more sway than even him.
I simply can`t believe this. He got plenty of coverage in the media. There was this segment on the Nation which vehemently backs him up, and for that matter, trashes the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The Canadian Human Right Commission defines the purpose its most sacred document; the Canadian Human Rights Act, as “to ensure equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination, in areas under federal jurisdiction. The idea behind the Act is that people should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because of their age, sex, race or any other of the 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination covered by the Act.” Those 11 “prohibited grounds” you might ask? And I would oblige; they are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex (including pregnancy and childbirth), sexual orientation, marital status, family status, mental or physical disability (including previous or present drug or alcohol dependence) and pardoned conviction.
Going further into the article, Steyn discusses a case where a restaurant owner asked a person smoking medicinal marijuana to leave the front of his restaurant. I see how someone could pull a Human Rights complaint out of that, but have to ask whether or not the owner could as well? Is it not a basic human right to a clean and healthy environment? Well, then why should the restaurant owner and all of his customers from that date for that matter, not file complaints against the person smoking marijuana? Partly because that is not what the Human Rights Commission deals with, but also because who would the media side with? That one person with some terrible illness requiring medicinal marijuana who just to go out for dinner, or that mod who labelled them a stoner?
Fairclough, Norman. " Language and Power."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)