Identity Theft: Diana DeGarmo

Just when we were researching and writing about online identity theft...

Here's an interview with 2nd place finalist of American Idol 2004, Diana DeGarmo. A fan of hers stole her identity then proceeded to buy things online using her stolen credit card information. How daring!
Read more about it here at http://biz.yahoo.com/brn/070223/21087.html?.v=1

QotW5: Online Identity - I Am Anyone I Want to Be

"But on the telephone line I am anyone, I am anything I want to be.
I could be a supermodel or Norman Mailer,
And you wouldn't know the difference.
On the telephone line, I am any height; I am any age I want to be.
I could be a caped crusader or space invader,
And you wouldn't know the difference, or would you?"

--Lyrics taken from Santa Monica (1997)
Written by Darren Hayes and Daniel Jones of Savage Garden

---

True enough, on the telephone, it is easy to assume any identity as long as your voice can pull it off. With the coming of the Internet, it has become even easier to be somebody you are not. Due to the anonymity of Internet users who are simply situated behind a computer screen, users can create a desirable image of him/herself on the Internet.

"One of the interesting things about the internet is the opportunity it offers people to present themselves in a variety of different ways. You can alter your style of being just slightly or indulge in wild experiments with your identity by changing your age, history, personality, physical appearance, [and] even your gender" (Suler, 2002).

Friendster - Personal Online Identity

An online identity that I own would be my online profile on Friendster (http://www.friendster.com/). Friendster, by now, needs little introduction as we all know that it is a popular online social networking site.

By viewing my profile page, you can find out a lot of personal data such as my name, age, location, school, zodiac sign, and how I look from my photographs. From the photographs, one can have a rough idea of where I usually hang out and how my close friends look like. Displaying of your last name is however, optional. Of course, there are users who choose to put up more/less detailed information about themselves. However, I have always set my profile as "limited to my friends only." This means that only those users whom I approve to be on my list can view my full profile. This is a method of protecting your online identity on Friendster.

Friendster is constantly upgrading their system to maintain its popularity and now it allows its users to post their favourite videos in the "Media box" section where most prefer to conveniently embed videos from YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/) into their Friendster profiles.

According to Joseph Walther's Social Information Processing Theory discussed by Em Griffin, people who are online have the opportunity to "make and sustain an overwhelmingly positive impression." They can present all their most attractive traits and accomplishments while filtering out the negative things. Thus, your online identity becomes a selective self-presentation (2006). So, if a stranger views your Friendster profile, he may develop a very different perception of you as compared to someone who already knows you personally.

Friendster - Reputation

Reputation is something that people tend to care a lot about. Of course, everyone wants to have a good reputation. It is the same for an online social networking site such as Friendster.

On Friendster, friends can leave testimonials and comments for one another which will appear on the profile page. The more positive and favorable testimonials/comments a person has may enable him/her to have a higher reputation in the "Friendster world." It also allows other viewers to get to know what others say about a particular someone. Here, we find an attribute discussed about the gift economy in my previous post: the testimonial section is highly fuelled by the principle of reciprocation.

To increase one's reputation, he might want to carefully select the information he chooses to present about himself to create a far more positive identity than he really possesses. As stressed in the introduction, on the Internet, you can be anyone or anything you want to be, really. Therefore, be careful who you meet on Friendster. If you intend to meet him/her in person, remember that he/she might not turn out to be what you imagined him/her to be. Recall: the video posted on the COM 125 website (http://com125.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/qotw5-online-identity-reputation-deception/).

Another way to judge a person’s popularity or reputation on Friendster is to take a look at his number of profile views. On the profile page, there is a section that states "Profile Viewed: XXX times since 1/2/2007."

In addition, people tend to judge a person's reputation by how many friends he/she has on his Friendster account. I have several friends who actually own multiple Friendster accounts because they seem to have just that many friends to add. Plus, there is no law/rule that states you can only add someone who is really your friend. It is a personal choice. These people usually name their multiple accounts by volumes such as: John Lee I, John Lee II, John Lee III etc. With the creation of multiple accounts, these users have now become popular.

Identity Theft - The Attack of the Clones



With so much personal information easily found on someone's Friendster profile, it is extremely easy to steal his/her identity. On the Internet, "[m]any of the basic cues about personality and social role we are accustomed to in the physical world are absent" (Donath, 1996).

If someone wanted to steal my online Friendster identity, he could simply save and upload my photographs and replicate my personal information onto another user account. In addition, he could add the same friends I have on my original account since the list is easily accessible to him. From there, he could send messages, and much more, to my friends using my online identity.

If he is not discovered and dealt with, through computer-mediated communication (CMC), he could use increased flaming (hostile language that harms relationship on the Internet) in the messages sent to my friends while using my identity (Griffin, 2006). This would risk my relationship with my friends without my knowledge of it. "How harmful are such impersonations depends upon how defamatory the faked postings are and whether readers believe the false attribution" (Donath, 1996).

A true incident of identity theft on Friendster actually happened to my friend a few years back. Her profile details and photographs were duplicated onto another account and the "thief" added all of her friends on her original list and sent out a mass message telling them to delete her other account from their list, claiming that her original account was the fake account instead! When I received that message, I believed it and obediently deleted her real account from my list too. See the dangers of identity theft?

If you type "Britney Spears" or "Justin Timberlake" on Friendster's "User Search" function, you would be returned with hundreds of results, each containing photographs of these celebrities with a matching profile containing their name, age, occupation and hometown information accurately.


As celebrities, their personal data is easily accessible for anyone to replicate and assume the identity. However, it is less believable than assuming the identity of someone less famous, such as you and I. So, do not give out too much detailed information about yourself as you’ll never know if someone might become another you.

---

References:

Donath, J. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Griffin, E. (2006). Social information processing theory of Joseph Walther. A first look at communication theory, 6th edition, pp. 142-155. McGraw-Hill Companies.

Suler, J. (2002). Identity Management in Cyberspace. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 4, 455-460. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/identitymanage.html

QotW4: Gift Economy: The Future Tense of "I Give" is "I Take."

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


Most of us would have been taught the ethic of reciprocity at some point in life. It encourages us to be giving, yet it also leaves us anticipating that we would get something good in return. A gift economy can be closely tied to the concept of the Golden Rule.

"A gift economy is an economic system in which the prevalent mode of exchange is for goods and services to be given without explicit agreement upon a quid pro quo (the Latin term for the concept of "a favor for a favor"). Typically, this occurs in a cultural context where there is an expectation either of reciprocation--in the form of goods or services of comparable value, or of political support, general loyalty, honor to the giver, etc.--or of the gift being passed on in some other manner" ("Gift Economy," 2007).

After I read this week's topic, I immediately thought of an interesting line that my former lecturer, Dr. Andrew Sachs, had told the class: "The future tense of I give is I take." He took this from a book by Robert Cialdini. Indeed, a gift economy is well fuelled by the concept of reciprocation, a fundamental principle of the gift economy. According to Robert Cialdini, the rule of reciprocation "says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us" (2001). Now, let us look at the gift economy in greater depth.

What are the "gifts" in a gift economy?



The "gift" part of "gift economy" should not be taken literally (Matzan, 2004). On the contrary to our common perception of a gift, gifts in a gift economy need not be tangible; neither must it be bought using money. This is a reason why most of us who are actually involved in a gift economy are unaware that we are!

Some examples of gifts are: content, advice, information, recognition and compliments. In addition, gifts are "intangible rewards, such as reputation, anticipated reciprocity and self-esteem" (Veale, 2004).

As the focus of this course is on the Internet, it is important to note that online gift economies are more on digital goods. "The setting is a (1)network of (2)digital (3)information, and each of these three features drives important changes. It is a world of information rather than physical objects" (Kollock, 1999).

Gift economy vs. Capitalist economy

A Capitalist economy generally refers to an economic system where the means of production operate for profit and are privately owned. Plus, it usually involves the trading of capital goods, labor and money ("Capitalism," 2007).

After understanding the concept of a gift economy, it seems as though it operates contrastingly to a capitalist economy, one that most of us are involved in now. However, according to Jem Matzan, "The gift economy concept does not interfere with capitalism at all, despite the general misunderstanding and mythology that surrounds it" (2004).

If we look at it in a different light, Matzan has a point. What we mostly gain from a gift economy are valuable intangible rewards that cannot be bought using money from a capitalist economy (such as reputation and self-esteem). Through a gift economy, people can interact and help one another, be it directly or indirectly. Thus, these two economies provide us with different types of benefits.

In relation to Lewis Hyde's "The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property," Richard Turner states that "[g]ift exchanges create bonds and a sense of worth, while commodity exchanges require no necessary connection between the parties, either before or after the event, and characteristically have specific value. Often, a gift exchange becomes a commodity exchange when the transaction reaches beyond the boundaries of the gift community" (1989).

A gift economy?

"The Internet is still a gift economy" (Phillips, 1997). Indeed, when we use the Internet, we are participating indirectly in a gift economy. However, let us look at it on a smaller scale.

Recently, I joined an online art community called "deviantART". It allows me to share and view art works with thousands of others around the world. Their database of art works range from digital art, photography and traditional art to comics and fan art. These files are uploaded by members who are willing to share and give others a chance to view them. This community has been around for nearly seven years.

(www.deviantart.com)

The website has forums where users share information and interact while some even recruit artists by posting notices in the "Job Offers" section. Members share their interest for art and allow others to view their works. As an individual member, you can view the works of others and add them to your "favorites" list or leave them a compliment on their main page. As you give away these positive remarks as intangible "gifts," others will tend to link back to you and return you with a "gift" too. This way, deviantART members help to promote each other’s works through reciprocity, the principle of a gift economy.

By giving other members comments and increasing their page's viewership, we increase their self-esteem and status in the online community. All these are done in anticipation that we, too, would benefit from it somehow. Sometimes, these intangible rewards can also lead to tangible rewards. Popular art works are being put up for sale as prints on the website too.

From what I have explained, it can be told that deviantART is an example of an online gift economy. The best thing about this online community is that it is free to join and express yourself. In addition, the site encourages members to "give" by providing the option of protecting their works with Creative Commons.

In summary, deviantART fulfills the characteristics of a gift economy as:
1. Members willingly upload and share their works/files (The act of giving).
2. There is no explicit agreement upon a favor for a favor.
3. Members are driven by the principle of reciprocation.
4. Intangible rewards can be gained by participating in the community.

______________________________________________
Ralph Waldo Emerson – “The gift, to be true, must be the flowing of the giver unto me, correspondent to my flowing unto him.”
______________________________________________

References:

Capitalism. (2007). In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&oldid=106376748

Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.


Gift Economy. (2007). In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gift_economy&oldid=105681971


Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/economies.htm


Matzan, J. (2004). The gift economy and free software. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/06/04/142238.shtml?tid=150&tid=82


Phillips, E. (1997). Gift economy. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www.rewired.com/97/0602.html


Turner, R. (1989). Lewis Hyde, the gift: Imagination and the erotic life of property. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.mla.org/ade/bulletin/N092/092054.htm


Veale, K. (2004). Internet gift economies. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2004/02/04

Back to Basics

I have reverted to the basic blog template for easy-reading and to avoid any errors in my formatting that might have occurred.

Will YouTube Survive?

Protected by the Copyright law, Viacom (which owns VH1, MTV, Nickelodeon and Paramount Pictures), has asked YouTube to removed 100,000+ videos from the YouTube website.

I feel that this was a problem waiting to happen. Similar to the idea of sharing mp3 files on P2P (Peer-to-Peer) programs, YouTube has provided us with a convenient site to access millions of videos uploaded by users. It was not long until people went beyond viewing the videos online to downloading the videos.

Users who put up full versions of music videos or shows on YouTube for sharing were enabling others to download them while YouTube was providing these users with the medium to do so. Thus, Universal Music Group once stated that YouTube is a "hub for pirated music videos."

Source: USAtoday.com, "Viacom asks YouTube to remove over 100,000 unauthorized video clips."
URL: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-02-02-viacom-youtube_x.htm

QotW3: To Download, Or Not To Download?

Who is stealing music?

I just bought an original copy of an XYZ band's album. James liked only one track off the album while listening to it in my car. When I got home, I ripped that song into an MP3 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3) format onto my computer and sent it to James through MSN (Microsoft Network) messenger. I shared my file with him.

If I did not send James the song, he would have opened his P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing program and downloaded it off some other person's folder of shared files. Either way, XYZ band would not have sold an extra copy of their album to James. What seems to be the difference? I am allowed to rip the song off my copy of the album and into my MP3 player, but not let James have it. How do you actually control the circulation of MP3s?

_________________

With new models of MP3 players constantly being introduced into the market, it is without a doubt that MP3 players have replaced the popularity of MD (Mini Disc) and CD (Compact Disc) players. Now that nearly everyone around us owns MP3 players, take a step back and wonder: where are all these people getting their songs from?

File Sharing
"File sharing is now one of the most common on-line activities. More than 60 million Americans have downloaded music and the number of file sharers continues to grow rapidly" (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005).

P2P programs such as Napster and Warez P2P provide users with the convenience of downloading songs from a whole library of files put together by the shared folders of other users. Everyday, there are millions of file transactions being made through such programs. Thus, P2P programs have easily become the blame for any decline in record sales by the music industry. Is it really the cause?

CRIA (Canadian Record Industry Association) did a study on whether downloading music actually hurts record sales. From this research, they have found that "the largest downloading demographic is also the largest music buying demographic" and "dips in music sales have little to do with the availability of music on P2P services" ("Canadian Record Industry Association Study," 2006). This is a very interesting finding especially when it is coming from a recording company itself!

The Copyright Law
The purpose of copyright is mainly to benefit content creators while also encouraging creation of works. According to Kevin Brady, Attorney at Law, "It is generally accepted that a person may make personal copies (such as mix discs) of his/her legitimately-acquired CDs...However, the question of whether a person may give copies to others is not clear." In addition, copyright law states that no legal action may be taken against anyone who engages in "non-commercial" copying of musical recordings. The problem lies with the undetermined legal meaning of "non-commercial" (Brady, 2007). Technically, in reference to my anecdote, sending James the MP3 file is indeed non-commercial.

"...[T]he entertainment industry is arguing that the copyright law has not kept up with the digital world" -- Terence Smith, media correspondent (2005).

Just as the First Amendment grants people the freedom of speech, copyright law facilitates the monetary gains of producers and distributors. Therefore, if we stick to the current stringent copyright law, would we be neglecting the interests of the public?

Sharing = Promoting
When peers share digital music files through the Internet, they also help to promote the music. Recall the CRIA research findings, "The largest downloading demographic is also the largest music buying demographic."

Put the profit concerns of the music industry aside and look at the situation through the eyes of the public, the consumers. Allowing music files to be circulated freely on the Internet would give people the opportunity to sample the music. If it suits their liking, they could head down to a CD store and purchase it. If it does not suit their liking enough, the producers lose a chance of increasing their sales, but they increase the awareness of the singer.

"While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who in the absence of file sharing would not have bought the music they downloaded" (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf, 2005). Objectively, it is equivalent to free promotion of their music!

The Music Industry
The number of sales made is a way to determine who is on the top of the charts. But let us face it; the music industry does not only make money from the sale of albums produced. Band merchandise, concerts and other special performances rake in the profit for those in the music industry. If a band is good enough to make it big, it will do so despite the existence of P2P programs or other forms of downloads.

Today, even with millions of music files being circulated, bands and singers who are good enough are still clenching the top spots in the market and making big bucks. As the world advances, big changes are constantly being made. Instead of fighting to protect their comfortable share of the economic proceeds, the music industry should change their mindset and welcome the new age of P2P file sharing.

Analysis:
Content creators (music industry) want to secure their profits while the public wants freedom of access to digital music files. Currently, the content creators are well protected by the copyright law that has given them the right to charge anyone who infringes the copyright. To benefit both sides, compromises must be made.

Since the CRIA research has proven to us that the exaggeration about the music industry suffering major losses due to music downloads is not true for all companies (Geist, 2006), content creators should be able to continue making profits even if the public were able to share music files legally. After all, P2P file sharing is not for monetary gains.

Solution:
Legally define peer-to-peer sharing of digital music files as a "non-commercial" act. With the definition of the once unclear word, "non-commercial," disputes between music industry companies and people who download shared music can greatly be reduced.

P2P programs should be allowed to exist legally so long as they serve no commercial purpose and do not attempt to make profits. On the other hand, the music industry should be encouraged to accept the existence of P2P programs and even embrace this new technology.

As people are spending more time on the Internet, file sharing is inevitable. This means that copyright laws are no longer as effective despite the numerous legislations being set up. To wrap up the solution, the public must be urged to access P2P programs ethically and not infringe other sections of the copyright law.

As Garrett Hardin said, "People are the quintessential element in all technology...Once we recognize the inescapable human nexus of all technology, our attitude toward the reliability problem is fundamentally changed."

_______________________________

References:

Brady, K. (2007). Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html

Canadian Record Industry Association Study. (2006). Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/murmurs/archives/2006/20060320_downloading.html

Geist, M. (2006). CRIA's Own Study Counters P2P Claims. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1168/comment_write,/comment_view,1/

Hardin, G. (July-August, 1976). Skeptic. (S&S).

Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Strumpf, K. (2005). The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf

Smith, T. (2005). Downloading Debate. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june05/download_3-07.html

_____________________

Some extra readings:

From CNN.com - Simple downloads, complex change:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/08/18/online.overview/

From AT&T - The popularity of music downloading:

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=6598