For this posting, I decided to report and comment on five particular radio podcast created by On The Media. These particular podcast are on the topic of hacking, which today is a very relevant subject.
An interview with Nicole Perlroth, a New York Times technology reporter, gave an insight into how easy it has been for Chinese hackers to infiltrate such systems. The interviewer, Brooke Gladstone, points out that up until now, with the hacking of the New York Times, major companies have seldom come forward with reports of their hacks. Nicole Perlroth explains that the New York Times, originally hired a security company to keep track of the hackers activity. Their next move was to replace "every computer that had been compromised" and try to block connections between their server and the hackers servers. In the process, they took the necessary measures to alert the FBI of the incident. When the security company realized that there was still ongoing activity, the New York Times then ordered the security company to attempt to figure out just how the hackers were infiltrating their systems. Perlroth states that once their security company "had a good idea" of how their system was being infiltrated, and what exactly the hackers were after in the first place, they were able to take further measures to secure their system. After this whole ordeal is when the New York Times told the public of its hacking. When Gladstone asks Perlroth if the measures they took were enough, Perlroth answered by explaining that it is "still an ongoing effort", and that their reason for going public was to "educate our own employees about how easy it is for hackers to get into our systems". Perlroth says that any system could be hacked through a simple unsuspecting email. She even tells us that in 2011 at one of their headquarters, a thermostat was hacked, and was being controlled by the hackers server.
The story about the thermostat is just about the most bizarre thing I've heard of, and like Perlroth said, sounds like it came straight out of a thriller. I appreciate that the New York Times came out with their hacking story for the purposes of educating not only their own employees, but other companies as well.
Brooke Gladstone introduces us to this story by explaining that The Copyright Alert System is a system, also known as Six Strikes, that penalizes serial illegal downloaders, which will be hired in the near future by internet service providers like AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon, in order to take precautionary measures against this crime. In this segment, Gladstone interviews Jill Lesser, the Executive Director of The Copyright Alert System, who will explain how this system works. Lesser first explains that the system monitors what is being illegally downloaded, and that information is then passed on to internet service providers, who then pass that information on to their customers as an alert. The customer given the first alert is told that their internet service account was used to illegally download files, and at that point they are given suggestions to take precautionary measures like making sure their wireless connection is secure. The fifth alert given to the customer can be one of two options: the customer will either have to watch a tutorial explaining what copyright infringement is, and how it is harmful, or the customer's data speeds will become noticeably slower for a period of 48 hours. If a customer feels as if they are being framed for illegally downloading files, they have the option to pay a fee of $35 and appeal the decision. This Copyright Alert System is intended to reach the least dangerous downloader, because they realize that the most skilled downloaders can obviously find ways around being detected.
I think this plan for the major internet providers will be very useful, and might help to keep the average person who thinks that digital media piracy is an okay thing to do, from doing so. However, I agree with Jill Lesser that it won't necessarily help to ward off so-called professional digital media pirates, since they most likely will know how to get around it.
Bob Garfield interviews Joe Karaganis, one of the authors of a study done by Columbia University regarding today's "digital media pirates", in an effort to explain how common this issue is becoming. Joe Karaganis states that through their survey of Americans, only 52% were for punishment of any kind towards those who download just one movie or song illegally. He then makes the assumption with this data that most Americans are not opposed to this crime. Also gathered from the survey was which penalty most Americans would favor for occasional illegal downloaders. The most frequent answer for this part of the survey was fines and warnings, as opposed to more serious penalties like forced "disconnection from the internet". Karaganis then explains that Americans show more tolerance for sharing files among friends and family than to sharing files on a mass scale. So the conclusion that can be made from this study, is that the face of digital media piracy today is not the criminal behind the computer, but rather the average law abiding American who does not think of illegal downloading on a small scale as a true crime.
I personally think digital media piracy is morally wrong, and should have higher levels of punishment. I find it sad that the majority of Americans think it is acceptable to commit this illegal act, if only one time. If they only knew of the financial consequences it causes, they might think differently.
Interviewer Bob Garfield introduces the story of Jonathan Coulton, a former software writer turned cover artist, who came face to face with the so-called "grey area" of copyright infringement. Jonathan Coulton, in 2005, made a cover of Sir Mix-A-Lot's song "Baby Got Back". This cover was then used, in 2013 "note for note" by the Fox tv-show Glee. The ethical issue behind this story is that what Glee did was not in fact illegal. As a form of payback, Jonathan Coulton published his cover to iTunes under the name "Baby Got Back, In the Style of Glee", which is an ironically passive form of protest to their actions.
I find it very hard to believe that there is no copyright law in effect to protect cover musicians like Jonathan Coulton from having their work infringed upon. If anything, Jonathan Coulton should become an advocate for pushing the legal system to create a law that would protect musicians like himself.
Brooke Gladstone interviews Andy Carvin, NPR's senior strategist, in an effort to unveil how he has been so successful in tweeting the revolutions taking place in the countries of Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, Libya and Egypt, and yet still be so unqualified to do so. Carvin explains that he reports these up-to-date stories on Twitter often in the most ordinary of places, such as the playground at McDonalds with his children. He explains that he often gets information from fellow Twitter users translating the information he wants to report on, since one of the reasons he is unqualified is the fact that he only speaks English. He says that the point to his reporting on the smaller and typically more violent stories is because he knows those stories would otherwise not be covered. Carvin also explains in detail how by tweeting a question to his followers, and therefore receiving answers, he was able to uncover a new story in the Revolution. He continues to tell stories of the incredibly revolutionary people he connected with or knew of during his time "tweeting revolutions".
Although this podcast is not necessarily about hacking, it is relevant in the sense that it praises the possibilities of people becoming globally connected for a good cause through social media. I find Andy Carvin's story to be fascinating, and I hope other people can learn from his example.
