On The Media: Life Experience of the Justices

Physical: They talk about how Justices are portrayed in films, and other fictitious media outlets. The media often makes legal issues seem extremely dramatic. Elements are added into these forms of media to make the world of the supreme court, and other legal segments extremely interesting, and involved. The fact that, in these shows and movies, we see the intimate lives of the characters, creates the understanding that maybe it would be important to understand the views, and lifestyle choices of the Justices.

Psychological: Media depictions of the Justices help us to understand the shut-off, and seemingly secretive world of the Supreme Court. Supreme court Justices have a huge impact on what goes on in our society, so their views, beliefs, and actions should matter to us as citizens of the country.

Temporal: As time progresses, more and more questions arise about the government, and this is another form of that. People are beginning to understand that it is important to consider life experience, along with views and beliefs when appointing Justices to the Court.

Cultural: The legal world isn’t one that society necessarily identifies as interesting. There are several court room related television shows that are extremely popular. We place an extreme importance on life experience, so it makes sense that we would care about understanding not only the legal knowledge that the Justices have, but also the life experience that they have obtained.

I think that it is important for us to understand that Judges are human. Their lives, and their views and beliefs have the ability to change on the daily, just like ours do. It’s also important for them to understand the responsibility that they have to the country to make fair judgments. To be really honest, I’ve not thought about this topic before, but I agree that it’s important to understand, and consider the life experience that any person who enters the political/legal world has before they are appointed. Life experience is what we take our views and beliefs from.

Religion 3.0

Discussion:
Social media is used by both leaders, and members of many different denominations. People make the argument that social media has become a way to contact, and fellowship outsiders of any particular religion. Various forms of social media have also been utilized to inform the public about certain religious beliefs. Social media has also become a place where hatred of opposing beliefs is expressed. I recently read an article about a Jewish Group who was trying to identify the authors of some anti-semetic messages that were sent via twitter. Like any opinion or belief based topic, both positive and negative messages about religion's are displayed on social media. Churches have the opportunity to create apps to help their members connect with each other, and stay up to date on current church topics. They also post documents, and sometimes even daily messages for members to read.

Position:
I've heard the argument before that people should keep their religious views off of the internet, because of the controversy that it starts, but I feel like who we are online is becoming a representation of who we are in real life, and if religious views are a part of that, I say, talk about them. No matter your opinion, or belief, social media is a great way to connect with people from around the world, and have educated (and sometimes non-educated) discussions about religion. In my own religion, I have seen facebook used as a tool to reach out to people, and fellowship them. I hold a position in my religion, and I use instagram, facebook, and twitter to communicate with the people that I go to church with. We have even used Facebook to put faces with the names on our roll, so that we know who they are when they walk in. I also follow various leaders from my church on social media websites, and I love reading their uplifting messages throughout the day. I think that utilizing social media to stay connected with other people who share your beliefs is a really great use of social media.

OTM Replacement: Darkode

Physical: Hackers are getting into private computers and holding owner’s files for ransom. They hack into the computer, capture the data, and lock the owner out of the data. Until the owner pays the ransom to retrieve their data back, the files will be locked. Sometimes, there is even a timeline in which the owner has to pay the ransom, or the files will be lost forever.

And then there’s Darkode… which hackers use to communicate, and trade information.

Psychological: I would imagine that this would have the similar, if not the same psychological effect on someone, as physical theft would be. They’re devastated that their files, or family photos, and other data have been stolen. I can imagine, that especially for the older generation, it would be quite confusing to figure out.

Dan speaks about how he became intrigued with malware and viruses. I would imagine that his story is quite similar to that of other hackers. You start with a computer enthusiast with a curiosity, and they find a way to make money off of it.

Temporal: With the progression of technology, people have started to store information, sometimes sensitive information in a technological form. Like a burglar can break into your home and steal your items, hackers can break into your computer and steal your files.

Daniel Placek was one of the creators of Darkode, and speaks about his involvement. He started his hacking career by playing video games in his parents basement. He meets a guy on an online game who is into malware, and viruses on computers.

Cultural: This is theft, and at least in our culture, theft is illegal. This is a really confusing, and somewhat hard type of theft to track, because it’s so indirect. People use the internet to enact their thievery, and although we can track IP addresses, and things like that, it’s hard to identify the thief.

As they are talking to Dan, they speak about the progression of hacking, and how it started out as spam, and then the hackers realized that they could use these programs to do other things to people’s computers.

This is so wrong, and so sad. Like I said earlier, this IS theft! And theft is wrong. I constantly see my friend’s Facebook and Twitter accounts hacked into. I don’t know that it’s really had any ill effects on them, other than having to create a new account, but it sucks, nonetheless. This is the number one reason why I back all of my information up on an external hard drive. I don’t know what I would do if I lost a client’s photos, or even lost the ability to work on them for a while. That would be absolutely devastating. I hope that with time, we will create a safer system for navigating the technological world, and there will be an easier way to identify these thieves. I thought that the section about Darkode was really interesting to hear, especially the part about the progression of computer hacking.

Privacy 2.0

Discussion:
From what I understand, after the September 11 attacks in 2001, the government instituted a set of actions in which they called "The Program." which started out as a way to monitor phone calls, and other various forms of communication for potential terrorist action. The original plan for the program involved a set of parameters that would protect U.S. Citizens. It sounds like eventually somewhere along the way, or perhaps even for the entirety of "the program" the parameters that would protect citizens were bypassed. Some people in various government agencies found out about what was going on, and questioned it's legality.

 Position:
In watching the "United States of Secrets" documentaries... I feel as though the majority of what I heard was a constant back and forth of  "This is Legal." "This isn't Legal." "Wait, is this legal?" Although I watched these documentaries, and have a small amount of background knowledge about this subject, the amount of knowledge I have is just that. Small. Nevertheless, here's my opinion, based on what I know...

In class, the question was asked, Can we have both safety/protection and privacy at the same time? I would argue that we can't. I sort of have the viewpoint of the fact that I don't have anything to hide, so I don't really care if my phone calls are monitored, and my e-mails are read. I do, however, think that it can go too far. I also think that a problem arises when our phone calls and e-mail information is stored, and not taken care of, making it subject to theft, or hacking by outside parties. I've often thought, well, if the government would have just let us know that they were reading through and listening to our information, rather than keeping it a secret, maybe people wouldn't have a big of a problem with it. But then I wonder... if people knew they were being listened to they probably wouldn't use those forms of communication to plan terrorist attacks. I do think that this infringes on our first and fourth amendment rights, but I also think that maybe we place too much emphasis on the law. I can't help but think about the saying from Pirates of the Carribean, "The code is more of a guideline." Either way, if you consider this it's a sticky subject... As far as the President using his wartime authority to authorize "the program" I think that sounds sort of sketchy... I think that more people should have approved and talked about it.

I guess, bottom line, my opinion is that while I don't necessarily think that it was wrong or right that the government was watching us, I do think that there should have been more honesty about it. This is where people like Edward Snowden come in. I'm not sure that I've formed a complete opinion of Snowden and what he did, and the way in which he did it, but it sure has helped spark conversation and somewhat of an understanding of what's going on in our government right now.

On The Media: Munchausen

Physical: Taryn Harper Wright tries to stop people from raising money for people with fake illnesses and fake tragedies. She contacts these people, and confronts them about the issues. Some of the people, she even became friends with. Munchausen syndrome is when somebody makes themselves physically sick in order to get attention from doctors, or loved ones. Munchausen by proxy is when someone tries to get attention by making a loved one sick.

Psychological: Sometimes people start these campaign’s for the money, some for attention. People see these campaign’s online, and unlike Wright, don’t do the research before they donate. People with Munchausen syndrome often times look to the internet for support. The internet is such an anonymous place, and so it’s really easy for these people to join support groups, and seek support from people that they don’t know, and that don’t know what is really going on with them.

Temporal: As they said in the broadcast, this is a psychiatric condition that was understood before the age of the internet, in the mid nineteenth century. Though this syndrome was not created by the internet, it has become another tool for people with Munchausen Syndrome to use.

Cultural: It seems to me like a lot of people would think that these people are lying, and see them as dishonest, untrustworthy people. But as Wright suggests, these people are not terrible people, and we’ll never fully understand what they’re going through. From what Wright explains of the syndrome, it seems like a serious psychological disorder, and more than often, professional help is needed to sort through those problems.

I’ve actually watched a few documentaries about this Syndrome, and an episode of Dr. Phil (don’t judge me) where he basically interrogates a woman with Munchausen Syndrome. To me, it saddens me that people feel the need to resort to lying about their physical state, and in extreme cases actually harm themselves in order to get attention. It really sounds like all of these people just need a friend. Someone to listen. I don’t think that it’s right when they raise money for fake illnesses. That, to me, qualifies as stealing. I think this topic brings to light the fact that people should do their research before donating money toward any cause or charity.

Well Informed 2.0: Democracy 2.0

 Discussion:
In this video, Mancini makes the argument that politics is solving today's problems with yesterday's tools. She then goes on to say that we should be able to solve today's problems with the tools that we use every day, such as the internet as a whole, and social media.  She states that citizen engagement is the first step to getting elected officials to truly listen. Politics is something that is widely discussed through social media, but are we saying the right things, and are we saying them to the right people? Through social media websites such as Twitter, Facebook, and even E-mail, we should have the opportunity to contact our elected officials, and inform them on what decisions we want them to make.

 Position:
Technology really should be something that we can use to create a bridge between citizens and their elected representatives. I definitely think that opinions aren't heard. This is one reason why I'm not a fan of the electoral college system that we have in place to elect our officials. That's a story for another day... We have this great opportunity to better connect with the people running our country, through technology, but technology itself isn't going to do it for us. We have to use it, and become involved in the process. I know so many people who have no faith in the governmental system, because they feel like they aren't heard. I think that elected officials should make it a priority to listen to the opinions of everyone who they represent, and social media is a great way to do that. We just have to utilize it.

*Insert Lightbulb Emoji Here*

One of my most recent "A-Ha" moments happened over the summer. I bought this really cool car... only problem was, it was a manual. My dad reassured me that learning to drive stick would prove to be easy... but if you were to go back in time and ask brand-new-car-owner, Nicole... I would definitely disagree. The first day was really, really terrible. I killed that thing more times than I should have, and I about had a mental breakdown. Seriously. I had this rad car, and I couldn't even drive it. So I decided to turn to YouTube for some additional guidance on how to drive my car. I watched probably a good three hours worth of instructional videos about how to drive a stick. The videos really told me basically the same things that my dad was telling me the day before, but the next day when I got in the car, something clicked, and I just figured it out. I'm not sure if it was the extra time spent, or something that one of the guys in the videos said, or maybe a combination of the two... but something happened, and the next day I was a heck of a lot better than I was on the first day.