Net Morality RSS Feed

SOPA And PIPA

1/18/2012 9:09 AM

I haven't posted in a long time but really feel I need to weigh in briefly about SOPA and PIPA. These two bills mean well as they are aiming to endonline piracy and protect intellectual propery, two things we should all be behind. Unfortunately, the bills - if passed into law - would threaten the internet in a variety of ways while doing little to actually stop piracy and copyright/ip infringement.

I'm no lawyer and this topic has been covered by so many websites and organizations that I think the best thing to do is point you to the best article I've found on the issue. The article was written by the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) and pretty clearly illustrates the dangers SOPA and PIPA would bring to the internet we know and love today.

Again, let me stress that I am very much against online piracy and absolutely think we need to find ways of preventing people from stealing digital goods, but SOPA and PIPA are not the way to do it.

Being Hacked Sucks

12/5/2011 12:00 AM

So starting today, all Squirrelinabox websites that were previously using Wordpress and being hosted at Dreamhost are now moved to my own dedicated server using a custom built content management system that I built from the ground up. Why? Because being hacked sucks.

Those that follow any of my blogs, such as Office Humor Blog and Falling Skies Fansite have probably noticed a lack of posts during the last few months. While some of that is because I've been incredibly busy working on new projects (namely some Windows Phone 7 apps) a big reason I've stopped posting is because pretty much all my blogs that were using Wordpress were being consistently hacked. For quite some time, the hackers were dropping hidden web pages and html links that were likely an attempt to leverage my websites' "link juice" to try and improve their rankings. Even worse, most of those pages and links were for things like porn, viagra, illegal software, etc. which likely hurt my site's rankings in search engines for the keywords they were designed for.

For awhile I did what I could to keep logging in and removing the pages and the links about once a week. Since I had almost a dozen different sites, this process took quite awhile. The breaking point came when the hackers (probably different ones) decided that seceretly hiding pages and links wasn't good enough as they started taking down the sites completely and replacing them with web pages that explained that the sites were hacked and gone.

How were my sites being hacked? I'm not sure entirely. I basically had two issues, one being Wordpress and the other being Dreamhost. First off, let me say that I love Wordpress. It's a fantastic piece of software that lets you get your sites up and running incredibly fast while also allows for significant customization. The problem is, with it being so incredibly popular, it also attracts quite a few hackers. The Wordpress team seems to be constantly pushing out updates, many of them being security patches, and while I definitely should have stayed on top of those updates better, the truth is, having nearly a dozen sites that need to be updated each time makes it quite a lengthy process for me. As such, my sites were likely vulnerable due to not being constantly up-to-date on the latest versions of Wordpress.

The second issue was that my blogs were all hosted on a shared server at Dreamhost. Because they were on a shared server, this meant I had very little control over the server itself. It also meant that other users with their own sites and potential vulerabilities also resided on the same server. While I'm sure Dreamhost does its best to make it so users can't "infect" each other's sites, there is no way of knowing since I don't have full control of the server myself.

Since either of those two pieces to the puzzle could have been the way the hackers were able to attack my sites, I decided that it was best for me to get rid of both of them. Ditching Dreamhost was simple since I've already been hosting all of my non Wordpress sites on a dedicated server for years. Ditching Wordpress was a bit more difficult since I had to either find a new third party CMS or build one myself. Because I wanted full control over everything, I decided to just build a Wordpress replacement myself. This took some time, but I finally finished it (along with a conversion process to convert my old Wordpress sites to the new system). Certain features aren't quite fully implemented yet, but everything should be solid enough for me to start posting again regularly on my sites.

Texas Police Arrest Teen for Online Harassment

10/17/2009 9:40 PM

Using the internet just got a bit scarier as Texas police arrested a teenager for online harassment last week. The arrest was made possible due to a new Texas law that took effect September 1 that criminalizes online harrasment via email, text messaging, and social networking sites.

To me, this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the MySpace suicide case. While harassment should be discouraged, enacting and enforcing a law that seems to single out online forms of harassment is not only unpractical, but as others have pointed out, is likely unconstitutional. Free speech is something we don't take lightly, and restricting free speech online seems like something that should hopefully be overturned soon.

Sure, the spirit of the law makes sense - prevent people from attacking others on the internet. With people hiding behind their computer screens and their hard-to-trace usernames, many people often do things they'd never do if they had to do it in person - dealing with the consequences of their actions. And while free speech is often touted as the end-all-be-all amendment that should never bend or break, we clearly have exceptions to the rule. For instance, libel and slander often circumvent the 1st amendment's protection. Sexual harassment, too, is not only against the law, but companies spend both time and money training their employess on how to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. So why shouldn't online harassment be yet another exception to the 1st amendment?

I guess my biggest problem with this Texas case is that I'm not exactly clear what constitutes harassment that'd be breaking the law and what harassment is really just arguing or childish namecalling. When I think about all the comments I read every day on various websites, I see too many potential cases of this law coming into play. If I see an article somewhere and I call the writer stupid is that harassment? If not, how many times do I have to call the writer stupid before it's harassment? If the writer responds back to me saying that not only am I stupid, but my mom is too, does that mean he is now harassing me? Sure it sounds silly, but it seems like almost half the comments on the internet degrade into something similar.

The article about the case in Texas says the details of the harassment haven't been revealed, except that it all started over a boy. I supposed the question to ask is would that girl have been arrested if she "harassed" the same way she did online but offline instead? I doubt she would have - and that's my problem with the whole thing.

FTC Passes Regulations That Require Bloggers to Disclose Paid Reviews

10/5/2009 10:23 AM

The FTC has just revised some guidelines regarding endorsements that will directly affect bloggers that participate in paid reviews. Basically, the FTC has put in place some fines for bloggers that don't clearly disclose payments (or free products) they get from companies they review products for.

I, personally, welcome the new guidelines. While I don't have anything against those that do paid reviews, I do think the process should be as transparent as possible. You may be able to post a fair review of a product you've been paid to review, but your audience should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest.

With that said, many people have already begun pointing out some potential problems with the enforceability of the new rules. So far, it looks like bloggers are the only groups singled out, which would leave loopholes for countless other Web-related mediums. What about paid Twitter Tweets, Amazon reviews, or Facebook messages? I'd like to think they would all be covered by the FTC's new guidelines, but nobody seems to know right now.

Google Ordered to Cancel User's Gmail Account

9/27/2009 8:50 PM

In my opinion, Google has the right to deactivate Gmail accounts for whatever reasons they like. It's a free country and with it being their service, Google can choose to alienate users by deactivating accounts if it so chooses. However, when a court orders Google to not only deactivate a user's account but to also disclose that user's information when the user has broken no laws whatsoever, well, then we've got a problem on our hands.

The user in question did nothing except receive an email that was accidentally sent to him. Sure, that email contained some highly sensitive financial documents, but it was the sender's fault not the recipient.

There's really not too much else to say about this. Anybody with any grasp of common sense should be able to see the huge problems with this court ruling. Basically, I could send some important documents to any Web account and get that account deactivated and the personal details revealed to me. That could include not only email accounts, but social networking accounts like Facebook and Myspace (they have their own messaging systems that can send and receive so-called "sensitive information").

Let's hope some sort of appeal will overturn this ugly ruling. Let's also wish for District Court Judge James Ware to find himself quickly out of work due to his lack of sanity in his rulings.

SOTW: Directory Blog

9/25/2009 11:35 AM

Hello there. I have been on your website a fair bit recently and thought I would email to let you know how much I find it highly entertaining and well presented. I also find some of the blog posts are very well written and quite interesting as well as useful. What I was wondering was, if I and my company would be able to buy a link on your site? We would offer yourselves a very fair price to you for a month's worth. Our sites are very relevant to your site; Bingo, Poker, Casino...etc... I wish to hear from you whatever your decision maybe. Hopefully speak to you soon and keep up the fantastic work of your blog!

[name removed]
[company removed]
Contact Me On: [removed]

When looking at the above email, you may not think it worthy of Spam of the Week. It seems fairly harmless - a SEO company is trying to buy advertising on one of my sites to help improve the rankings of one of their clients' sites. Seems good right? Well, not when you take into consideration that the site they are trying to buy advertising on is a Web directory that offers free links with no strings attached (though they do need to be approved). Also throw in the fact that they say they like my "blog" when (as I just mentioned) the site was not a blog but a directory. The guy even says the "blog posts are very well written and quite interesting as well as useful". Quite a feat for a directory with no blog posts to be found.

FCC Chairman Outlines Stance on Net Neutrality

9/21/2009 12:37 PM

A few weeks ago the FCC came out and declared that they would be supporting the idea of net neutrality. At the time, there weren't any real specifics talked about so many were skeptical of any action being taken.

While no direct action has been taken, the FCC Chairman has published a prepared statement that contains a few details on the finer points of the FCC's stance on net neutrality. It's a rather long statement, but there are some pieces that should be welcomed by proponents of net neutrality.

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.

Probably the main point behind net neutrality is that internet providers should not be able to manipulate traffic based on its source or content. Whether that means prohibiting the blocking ofcertain content or ensuring no priority is given to specific sources, it sounds like the FCC will take a firm stand against ISPs meddling with the traffic that's going through their pipes. For those thinking this may open a hole for illegal use of the internet, such as filesharing copyrighted materials or warez related downloads - think again. The chairman specifically pointed out that the protections would be for "lawful" content.

The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.

The chairman was mostly talking about the need to have internet providers let their customers know what is being blocked and why. Specifically, a provider should have to "open its books" with regards to how it regulates traffic.

All in all I like most of what the chairman has said. While over regulation of the internet is a bad thing in my opinion, I think putting some safeguards in place to prevent ISPs from doing too much regulation of their own is a good thing. I don't want an ISP to strike some back alley deal with Blockbuster to give their streaming videos a faster connection through the network while restricting rival NetFlix. That's the kind of thing that could slowly start crippling innovation on the Web.

Still... we'll have to wait and see if the FCC holds true to their word and make sure ISPs place nice.

SOTW: Creating a Love Tornado

9/18/2009 8:53 PM

This week's spam is like most spam these days in that it's trying to promote some sort of sex-related product. I just couldn't help but giggle when I read the subject line "Create a Love Tornado". Luckily for me, I don't think leather clothes and special toys will ever stop arousing me... oh wait... perhaps I've said too much.

Subject: Create a Love Tornado
If leather clothes and special toys don't arouse you no more, V-booster is here to help your passion.

Linking Not Libelous Says Canadian Court

9/17/2009 7:13 PM

Sadly, courts generally seem out of touch when it comes to how to apply the law to the internet. In a rare win for common sense, a Canadian court has declared that it's not libelous to link to defamatory content. While it is disturbing that the decision was not unanimous, it's still an important decision that should help protect websites from rediculous lawsuits in the future.

I completely agree that while free speech needs to remain a protected right, most forms of defamation should not be tolerated. With that said, a person who links to another site that is the source of the defamation, shouldn't be held responsible for the words on the linked page. If the Canadian court ruled that such hyperlinking could be consider libel, it'd open some potentially dangerous floodgates. Imagine all the sites (such as this) that have contextual based advertising on it. Contextual ads are dynamically generated and can be linking to any number of websites at any given time. If a site owner could be held accountable for what those ads linked to, it could very well cripple that form of advertising - a form of advertising many websites survive on.

In the end common sense prevailed and we can all hope for continued rational thinking in the various courts of the world.

Should The President Be Able To Shut Off The Internet?

9/14/2009 10:11 AM

A few weeks ago, details surfaced of a new bill that could hand the president of the United States the power to basically disconnect computers from the internet for emergency reasons.

While the bill isn't quite completed and the details remain vague, many Web outlets have been in an uproar - fearing the expansion of governmental control of the internet. Unlike most other bloggers and internet news reporters, I'm actually quite comfortable with the president having emergency power over the internet. Sure, such power could be abused and there's always the "slippery slope" argument, but people need to realize the president already has similar power in other areas of our life and that power is there for a reason.

Before I go one, let me assure you that I am generally for a smaller government that has less power and control. My feelings are that the government should exist soley to protect us and to keep things running smoothly while interfering as little as possible. With that said, I don't mind the president having the ability to turn off parts of the internet if it's deemed an emergency and a security risk.

Blasphemy! I'm sure many of you are screaming right now. But before you grab your pitchforks, imagine if the country really was under a "cyber" attack. If there were some computers on the internet that were trying to disrupt the rest of the Web, shouldn't the government have the ability to do something about it? What if we were at war and some of the networks vital to communication were compromised? Shouldn't somebody step in and cut off the infected areas?

Now, I know a big concern is that the government might abuse the power to control the internet. I think many fear something along the lines of China's internet restrictions may eventually creep into United States' policies, but that fear is pretty absurd in my opinion. I'd like to think U.S. citizens would never stand for a government that oppressed free speech or difference of opinions on the internet. If we ever get a president so bold as to think he or she can control the internet for any reason other than real safety concerns, I'm going to guess there'd be more than a few unhappy voters that'll make sure such actions don't last long.

Let me end by reminding people that similar action has been taken in the past with air travel. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush halted air travel. I'm guessing most people agree that was the appropriate action to take. So how is shutting down parts of the internet any different?