Blog Post 11: Each One, Teach One - Second Presentation Reflection

 Each One, Teach One: Reaction Post

In this blog post, I will be reflecting on information shared by my fellow peers from their "Each One, Teach One" presentation!

There were many topics shared from many different students, but there were a few topics that I personally took an interest in, and I will be discussing them down below!

Five Eyes

Before this presentation, I had no idea what "Five Eyes" was and had never heard of it before. Now, I am much more aware of what it is. Five Eyes is an intelligence sharing process between five different countries. It originated all the way back to WWII, where the US and the UK worked together to intercept enemy communication. They set up intelligence sharing between the two countries to stay in the know about the enemy and allied together to get ahead of the pack.

Today, Five Eyes still exists, and it mainly focuses on cyberthreats, geopolitical intelligence, and terrorism. Five Eyes only became apparent to the public once there were a bunch of data leaks from around the world. These leaks revealed extensive monitoring actions, which in return made citizens angry and upset about their governments spying on its own citizens. 

Because of this outrage, there have been many who strive to completely eliminate Five Eyes and to discontinue its operations. While I completely understand why citizens would be outraged due to not being aware of the government's actions, I also understand why they had to keep that information under wraps. In order for them to catch criminals or conspirators, they had to go unseen by the public. However, I do believe honesty and transparency is the best policy.

Disinformation

I had heard the term of "disinformation" before, but never knew the full extent of its meaning. According to my classmate who presented on this topic, disinformation is information deliberately spread in order to influence public opinion or to obscure the truth. 

My peer discussed both the negatives and the positives, as follows:

Positives: 

- Unites people

- Removes shame

- Give feeling of power

- Confirm already believed thoughts

- Gives explanation to unexplained events

- Provides a release

Negatives: 

- Takes away trust

- Can make you emotional 

- Creates division

- Leaves you in uncertainty

- Can be dangerous

I have to say I completely agree with all of these positives and negatives, especially under "Positives," that it provides a release and gives feelings of power. Many people who deliberately spread false information want to feel that they have the power to influence those around them, and through disinformation, they are able to achieve that. In addition, under the "Negatives" list, it definitely takes away trust and leaves you in uncertainty. If you were to listen to everything someone says and find out that it is all false information, you would be left doubting everything you hear from someone else, regardless of whether it is actually true or false.

Within the presentation, it was mentioned that disinformation is mainly found on social media, happening through trolls, AI, hackers, and search history like recommended engines. 

Ways to combat disinformation include:

- Looking at the author & where the source comes from

- Dig deeper on the topic to fully understand what is being discussed & so you are aware of what information is correct and what information may be false or incorrect

- Do a personal bias check; double check if the information is coming from someone who is biased

- Ask well-educated people about the information to ensure it is correct information

- Was the article with information done for satire? Was it serious?

**IMPORTANT: Disinformation is hard to spot!!!***

False Flags

The third topic I was interested in was the topic of false flags. False flags is a strategic operation put in place by the party at fault to pin the blame on another party. This is typically used in politics to paint one side as looking worse than the other. Countries also tend to use false flags to make their citizens lean on their own government for support rather than seeking out other countries. A perfect example is China. China tends to want to portray itself as elite and perfect to its citizens, hiding controversial events and using false flags to make other countries seem less appealing and look bad to their citizens.

Some positives of false flags include gaining tactical advantage in war, as well as possibly gaining public support. 

On the downside, there are negatives of using false flags. For example, using false flags is essentially lying to the public, is unethical, and hurts international allies. For a country like China who does not really care about its reputation and its allies, the negatives do not really affect it. However, for countries like the USA and smaller countries with less military support who rely on having allies, using false flags can be very detrimental to their reputation and is usually avoided at all costs.

How False Flags Affect Society as a Whole

- Public loses trust

- Death of innocent people & destroying of their homes

- Affects who people vote for in the future

- Destroys social unity

- Protests & riots may rise

How it Affects Certain Groups

- Wealthier people tend to have more resources and power than people with less money

- Minorities are more likely to be targeted

Conclusion

To conclude, I really enjoyed listening to my peers' presentations; I feel I learned so much more than I expected to learn. There were so many more topics that I did not mention in my blog post that caught my attention and I learned many new things about our government and the actions it takes. 

My next blog post will be my final post, so I am looking forward to seeing you join me in my last post on this platform! Thank you for reading, and see you next time!

Blog Post 7: The Progressive Era

 The Progressive Era

In my blog today, I will be writing about why the average citizen must seek out anti-war websites that share information from writers about anti-war arguments, and why it is that no one seems to hear about it in the mainstream media.

First Website: antiwar.com

This first website, when visited pops up with a bunch of different topics surrounding war from around the world. The writings in this blogger website are all very strong...but why are we not hearing about the things discussed in these blogs on the news? 

Second Website: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/

My Opinion

I believe that the reason behind why the average citizen is not viewing discussions surrounding topics of antiwar like on this website because the government wants to retain a certain image. If the news were to be talking about anti-war, people could begin siding with the idea that war is actually a horrible way to assert dominance by a government. 

Since anti-war talk is so marginalized due to it not being discussed, the media figures it is not as important to discuss since it does not fit a certain 'narrative.' The media relies on tellings stories from major sources and huge political and economic interests. They tend to rely on official sources like government press briefings, defense department updates, and corporate PR. Since anti-war voices often challenge these sources (questioning military actions, questioning government actions, foreign policy, military spending, etc) they don't fit the typical narrative. For example, questioning or critiquing U.S. military actions or alliances like NATO might be seen as "unpatriotic," which can make editors of stories in the media nervous about including such perspectives.

Additionally, these websites usually are not found easily enough due to underfunding since many of these websites are created by small groups that, again, do not fit the typical narrative. Because they do not fit the narrative, many people view them as outcasts. They tend to rely on donations, which limits their ability to spread their message and views, and it especially makes it difficult for the mainstream media to pick up their stories or opinions and share it across media.

To conclude, as many of us know, things like war and conflict sell. People watch more news that has to do with shocking events and out-of-the-ordinary occurrences. While anti-war talk is out of the ordinary, the average citizen tends to crave something more dramatic and sensational, like war. News channels that report on things like war get more views which in turn earns them more money, while anti-war messages tend to be more subtle and reflective--view it as less sexy and appealing as war.

Conclusion

With the websites listed above, I had no knowledge of websites like these before discovering them. I did really think about the idea that there are groups out there who are strongly against war and try to spread their message around the nation and around the world. Because I am not of this, and I am sure many others are not, it only goes to show how the mainstream media picks and chooses its stories, and if they think it will not sell, they do not bother. 

I believe that mainstream news should try to stray away from the typical narrative and share more nuanced stories like these. I know I would watch!

My next blog will be sharing information about the Diffusion Theory and my thoughts on it! See you next time!

Blog Post 5: Invasion of Privacy Reflection

Invasion of Privacy in Society Today

In today's blog post, I will be reflecting on a few TEDTalk videos I watched that discuss how media platforms tend to invade our privacy with their technology. After watching four videos detailing how technology invades our privacy, I will be sharing my feelings about the overall arching idea of technology possibly being too powerful and actually having a more negative affect on our daily lives than we are knowledgable of.

Video 1: Juan Enriquez

In the first video, the speaker, Juan Enriquez, compares how platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, cell phones, GPS, and many more are like "electronic tattoos": they provide as much information about who and what you are as any tattoo would. With that remark, he is raising a very strong point. There is such a thing as a digital footprint; things posted, liked, shared, and commented on stay with you throughout the rest of your life with these platforms, whether you like it to or not. Not only that, but the main point Enriquez is making is that these platforms have so much information on you that they could create an entire portfolio just with a few slivers of information. How scary is that?! 

In addition, he gives examples of the advancement in facial recognition--almost 88% accurate most of the time--and how with a simple picture, facial recognition technology can recognize those faces in the photo and identify each and every person there. A company named "Face.com" was sold to Facebook, and it contained over 18 billion faces in its system from facial recognition. It is terrifying to think that my face is located somewhere in Facebook's database and how many people have access to seeing what I look like and can identify me across numerous different platforms. 

Overall, Juan Enriquez creates the absolute perfect comparison of our presence on digital platforms: Electronic tattoos. His video teaches me to be more aware and cautious about my presence on social media platforms and to be careful with what information I share, because somewhere out there, someone has access to that information and can easily profile me. 

Video 2: Catherine Crump

In the second video featuring the speaker Catherine Crump describes how GPS locations allow the government to basically have a detailed portrait of who you are, what you do, your interests, and how you function in everyday life--just based on where you go. Crump states that "thanks to modern technology, the government knows way too much about what happens behind closed doors and local police departments make decisions about who they think you are based on this information." 

Something that I had not even thought of are the cameras spread across thousands of streets across the country that are capable of reading license plates. While I completely agree with Crump's idea that police departments know too much about us, I view it as a form of protection. Because police departments know this information, I feel safer knowing that they can make a profile of me, especially since I am not the type to do anything illegal. Maybe for some who prefer to keep their lives private or maybe even those that prefer to be anonymous in order to commit crimes may feel very uncomfortable and unsettled by this idea. 

However, coming from someone who feels safe with majority of police departments, I have to say I disagree with the idea that it is an uncomfortable contract that we sign as citizens in the United States. 

While I disagree with the main idea that it is "unlawful" for police departments to hold onto information about everyday citizens, I have to say that it does make me uncomfortable that they have information on me, despite me doing nothing wrong. However, I am the kind of person who does not like the idea of the government having that information when they are not the ones that technically enforce the law like police officers do. Yes, the government is the one enforcing laws, but I view police officers as everyday citizens like me and you, but they just have more power. 

I cannot explain it well, but I view the government as a more controlling power and police officers more checking citizens and making sure they are following the laws. I have never viewed police officers in general as negative and if anything, I view them as keeping the streets safe and preventing and resolving crime. Unfortunately, there are those police officers that are corrupt and abuse their power to take advantage of and wrongly treat citizens. 

In the end, I completely see where Catherine Crump is coming from and I do not like the idea of police departments having technology that powerful and them having the ability to store data about me in their systems, but I have to say I feel less threatened by it.

Video 3: Christopher Soghoian

The third video is with speaker Christopher Soghoian, who discusses how surveillance has happened for more than 100 years, supplied by telephone companies that can wiretap into phone calls. He describes how telephone companies have built surveillance features into the very core of their networks. 

The idea of this is quite horrifying, and come to think of it, I have always thought about how unsettling that would be if it were to happen to me. I know that I definitely disagree with the idea that someone should be capable of listening in on a phone call that is happening in private, especially if it is about information that me or someone else does not want to be shared. 

Soghoian makes a good point that it does not necessarily have to be someone you know; it could be your own government or a different government, or even someone like a hacker, criminal, or stalker. The thought of this makes me uneasy to think that information I want to discuss in private and I believe is private may not be after all. 

His video takes a turn, where he begins listing how Apple and Facebook have created encryptions that make it extremely difficult for anyone to wiretap into messages, phone calls, and Facetime calls. And after more than 100 years, the government finally cannot access information through wiretapping, which Soghoian says they are not happy about. According to Soghoian, "what upsets them the most is that the tech companies have built encryption features into their products and turned them on by default. It's the default piece that matters. In short, the tech companies have democratized encryption. And so, government officials like British Prime Minister David Cameron, they believe that all communications--emails, texts, voice calls--all of these should be available to governments, and encryption is making that difficult." From this statement, I can conclude that Soghoian is making an inference that the government is upset and enraged that it cannot monitor its citizens, and this seems to be a world-wide belief. 

He then makes the argument that everyone uses the exact same devices and that there is no such thing as a seperate device that the government can intercept. Now, majority of people want the safety of the government being able to track down and stop hackers, criminals, and other threats, but if they were able to do that, then everyone would be at risk of the government's ability to tap into their devices. 

To conclude, there really is no winning with this. If we do not allow the government to tap into all devices and monitor what is going on, then we run the risk of criminals, terrorists, and other threats getting away with their cyber presence. But if we do let the government tap into our devices, then we run the risk of the government being able to spy on all its citizens, not just the bad ones. 

Video 4: Darieth Chisolm (unable to link video here)

In the fourth and final video, Darieth Chisolm, the speaker in the video, discusses how the internet, because of how vast it is, can have content on it that is on display against your will. She was a victim of "revenge porn" or as she calls it, "digital domestic violence," and through talking about this trauma, she makes the argument that the government needs to put more laws in place that protect and defend against acts such as this. Unfortunately, only 40 states in the US have laws that somewhat fight against this issue, majority of which are misdemeanor charges. Because of the lack of attention this worldwide issue has gotten, there are little to no consequences for those who commit this heinous act, and there are no solutions to stop it currently--without it costing thousands of dollars and countless hours of waiting. Even then, there is no true solution to this yet.

However, if the government can put in place laws that actually help protect victims against this crime and allows punishments for those who commit the crime, there may be some resolution in this. It is terrifying to think that not only would someone be capable of committing an act like that, but the internet having that content and millions having the ability to view it. Even once it is deleted or removed from the internet, it really is never officially 'removed.' Just like a digital footprint, there is some data somewhere that contains that content, someone may have downloaded it and can share it from there, and the fact that the internet was even able to take in that content should be criticized and a solution should be found. 

Reflection

Overall, all the issues mentioned in the videos have been issues that have crossed my mind, especially the idea of wiretapping into devices. As a Sci-Fi novel enthusiast, the idea that the government could have as much power as they did in the book 1984 by George Orwell is horrific to think of. In the novel, the government has surveillance everywhere and can hear every conversation of every citizen through every device. If the government were to approve a law that allows them to tap into devices, I know I personally would be very concerned about my privacy and the government invading it. I know such things as data being stored in all types of different platforms concerns me for my family and myself because god forbid something were to happen to their information and they face the problem of identity theft or other major crimes that could affect their lives heavily. 

For all these issues, I believe that the government should make laws that prevent others from, for example, having information available to them from data stored on the internet, as well as having the ability to post content about others against their will. I believe for both of those, there needs to be some way to monitor that and prevent it from happening. 

I believe some ways to protect ourselves would be to simply not share personal information on the internet, make accounts private to only you and people you know, as well as not sharing pictures that may put you in a vulnerable state unwillingly. To be honest, there really is no way to fully and completely protect ourselves from these issues due to the ability that technology has. If we were to stop using technology all together--especially the internet--that problem would likely be solved. But, to no surprise, that will likely never happen, and definitely not happen anytime soon. Perhaps in the future, there will be some sort of solution to all these issues mentioned, but until then, we have to try to survive with these problems.

Conclusion

To conclude, all the topics mentioned in the TEDTalk videos really opened my eyes to not only how vast the internet is and how vulnerable we are to it, but how much of our privacy we really have. Majority of the population on earth no longer has that full 'privacy' and pretty much anyone can find information about everyone. Technology is a scary thing...

Next week, I will be sharing information about some historic inventions that my peers did research on and I will be reflecting on it.