The article was informative and provided great resources that I hopefully take advantage of. I've already added spybot and ad-aware to my limited defenses from previous class discussions, and appreciate being cautious, but where does all the security end? I already very cynical and critical of most things coming across the web. I would say I follow the majority of the rules, but things like cookie management, being conscious of web security, home security, examining privacy policies, and using encryption can seem over the top. A lot of times I think it is practical to think about all these additional securities, but at the same time when do you say stop. Part of the joys of the internet is the ease of use and freedom of information it provides. We all have too little time and are too lazy to read all the fine print and set browers settings. I know I sound lazy and maybe I am, but like most things I feel that if I use my common sense I will be OK and going, IMHO , extremes is unnecessary.
So I think the article was useful and I understand it is practical to apply all 12 tips, but overall I don't think it will change my current habits that much. I think it will make me more conscientious of other's using my computer. People are reckless in their browsing habits and tend to click on anything that seems apppropriate. My girlfriend clicked on a pop up stating that I had a virus and it started downloading. What it was I don't know, but I closed the browser and ran a scan from my anti virus software.
22 October 2009
21 October 2009
20 October 2009
13 October 2009
Security
So trying to be a bit more serious. Let’s take a look at security on “Hackers.” First of all, the speed at which these hackers are working in real time while they hack is wildly inaccurate. Not only because of the connections that they are using but also I believe hackers write programs that run to find passwords or weakness in a system’s securities. Largely these programs run themselves and there is no updating as the program is running. I also do not believe battles between hackers within a system are inaccurate. You can not fight like you are in a video game. It is not designed that way. I also am baffled by the password, God, used in the movie. This supercomputer used by a global energy company is accessible by simply using the password “God?” Also, the security of an off site oil tanker would not be susceptible to a virus downloaded by a central corporate computer, or at least I hope not. Today we learned that a worm virus is designed to replicate itself multiple times until it eats up all a computer’s memory. The worm virus in the movie was not really a worm. It is a program that steals money from various accounts. I guess worm sounds sexier…ew. Similarly, the DaVinci virus is not a virus and rather a program for the same reasons. DaVinci is not designed to replicate using the programs of the system it has infected. Back to security, I believe that viruses are delivered and active under cover of darkness. If you announce your intention to infect a system, the administrator could just block all access from outside networks. If that isn’t possible, keeping an eye out for possible outside hackers, a security administrator would be able to identify and block possible threats. Finally, it seems that none of the systems in the movie had any security whatsoever. In fact, the only security feature I did see what the God password request in the beginning of the movie and the announcement of anti-virus programming in the final hacker battle. No where else do I recall firewalls, anti-virus programs, or cryptography. Interesting as the main characters are infiltrating different corporations and government organizations without any impediments, but they are “elite.” Once again, I can not argue, Angelina is “elite.” Especially in 95. YOWSA!
“Hackers’” Inaccuracies
Where to begin? I am not a technology guru and I’m sure some of what I have to say is going to be really obvious and there is a good chance that I’ll be wrong as well, but let me know what you think and steer me in the right direction. I’d appreciate it.
So let’s start with hardware. Really do you think all the graphics and coding will be move so quickly across a telephone line? I know that “movie magic” can create time lapse through editing, but I didn’t notice any, did you? Also, the death of the time lapse theory is destroyed near the end of the movie when each hacker add their talents to decrease the hacking time of the super computer from 8 to 7 to 6 to 5 minutes. Amazing. Together we can do anything! In addition, the mainframes of the super computers built on what looks like empty glass towers lit with coding and the little bolts of electricity running across the hardware when it is being “attacked.” AWESOME!!! And this might be possible, but can you tape cell phones to public phones and get a connection to a network? This movie was created in 1995! Pay phones people. But of course the school’s computers control the fire safety system. Not to mention a media companies video system fights with itself as two hackers try to see who rules the interwebs. Wow.
Ok so the software elements of this movie were equally amazing. Almost no coding is shown. The only coding I recall is the remnants of the copied worm. Everything else seems to work on a window based interface with some kind of IM application that takes up the whole screen to communicate between battling users. COOL. Psychedelic to amateurish graphics flashing across the screen during the hacker battles are inspiring. The visual manifestation of the viruses was another stroke of genius that is wildly inaccurate. From the complex of the DaVinci to the cheeky of the multiplying bunny rabbit to the cute of PacMan and Cookie monster viruses. This stroke of creative genius is forgivable because of its pure entertainment value.
Overall, the inaccuracies are wonderfully campy, but only one thing carries this baby me to the finish and that’s Angelina. No inaccuracies there. She can infect me anytime. ;)
McLuhan's Tetrad
A very interesting summation of a very interesting man. It is almost unbelievable that so many of the thoughts and terms we use to talk about the present and future state of media comes from a man who lived "in the early 1960s at a time when television was still in its infancy, and the personal computer was almost twenty years into the future.” At first glace, I thought high-priest was an exaggeration and inappropriate term to associate to a expert of marketing and media, but after finishing the article I agree that McLuhan’s reflections are on a prophet-like level. Granted many of his thoughts are not new. Women have always tried to attract men using physical qualities and “polishing” parts has been part of that quality, but noting that media has the power and influence women to increase and control individuals into action that attempt to increase these qualities is relatively new even today. McLuhan saw how we shape and are shaped by our desires and faith and clearly saw the environment
from all angles. I especially enjoyed how frank McLuhan can. “The objective of advertising men, said McLuhan, is the manipulation, exploitation, and control of the individual.”
I liked the structure of the summary and imagine it is how McLuhan began his pondering, beginning from inside our minds, to the physical abilities of our bodies, and extending out beyond to the community of humanity. McLuhan’s thoughts are once again not necessarily new, but the “extension” of those innate characteristics and having such a firm understanding as to predict the direction of our society is amazing. McLuhan’s thoughts on balance were particularly interesting There has always been a sense of balance, a system of plus and minuses. The idea of balance to our extensions and warnings over-extended technology result in loss or harm is very relevant today. This sense of balance is expressed well in McLuhan’s tetrad. The tetrad’s four questions give a broader perspective and balance to how we use technology and help us see to all the positives and negatives. At this time of our lives McLuhan’s ideas can be almost taken for granted. So much of what he shared has become the present. If we choose to ignore how media or technology shapes our lives and environment, we are in danger of losing ourselves in those things that we created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
