User talk:Cas00103

In a world where our every move is monitored by the internet, it is difficult to know how much control we have over what personal information is put out there of our selves. Social media is becoming more and more invasive of our privacy and it feels as though our visibility is constantly being watched by the world wide web. It evokes the question of what it means to be “online” and how much we are online. Reviewing the likes of Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Tinder, Snapchat, etc, it is obvious that there are so many platforms that retain our personal details, and it will be easy for it to create a whole picture of you, as each account asks for specific characteristics.

Personally, I try not to give away too much personal information on my social media accounts. For example, I haven’t shared where I study and where I went to school on my Facebook page, but there are thousands of people who give away all those details including their place of work and their relationship status. People add their personal information to their accounts under the presumption that their information is safe and that they are only sharing it with the people that they want to. However, this isn’t true. Cookies track what you view and share online and then sold to third party websites such as advertising companies in order for their products to reach their desired target audience. Social media is an extension of the internet, therefore whatever is posted is there permanently. This could effect people’s future job opportunities as employers often look at social media accounts of potential employees as a way to judge their character.

What is more worrying however is that our location can be mapped to our exact place. It is now common for most smart phones to have a location feature built into the default system. Because of this, some social media use this so that other people can see your location. In the wrong hands this could be a dangerous thing. Snapchat is the first media platform that tracks your location wherever you are. Unlike Facebook where you can share your location for the maximum of 60 minutes on Messenger, or Twitter where you can attach your current location to a tweet if desired, Snapchat shares your location for as long as you have location sharing as your setting. This feature has been given the name of Snap Map. There is a setting called ghost mode which keeps your location private and does not share it, however when Snap Map was first introduced, this was not the default feature. Therefore Snapchat users were visible to everyone until the ghost mode had been activated. It is feared that this feature can be used by people to stalk or bully others, and shows that there is such a thing as sharing too much personal data.

Internet of Things
Maple, C. (2017). The Internet of Things. Journal of Cyber Policy, 2 (02), 155-184. doi:10.1080/2378871.2017.1366536

In this article Maple critically assesses the Internet of Things, and looks more in depth into the security and privacy issues that arise. The main aims of this article is to identify the main issues of security and privacy that can threaten consumers, and companies, when becoming involved in the IoT. Maple uses date from previous statistics of projects from projects carried out by other scholars. This article is useful to our research topic because we are critically evaluating the IoT and assessing its dangers in terms of the safety and privacy of consumers. He identifies many issues that manufacturers have to keep products safe for use, and to make sure confidentiality is always an important objective. A limitation to this article is that Maple admitted that not much research had been done into the issue of privacy, therefore lacks the desired information needed for our project. However, he has detailed the extent of how misusing an individual’s privacy can affect their day-to-day life. This article will help form the basis of my research, but I will need to more extensive research into the issues of privacy threats.

Cas00103 (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments: This is an engaging annotated bibliography, I particularly find it fascinating the risks associated with IoT and will find it useful for our collaborative essay. Although this journal lacks research, it will be very helpful to compare all the different potential threats pinpointed by different academics.It will be interesting to see if in time scientists and experts can create new software allowing complete confidentiality. LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it is really interesting to research into possible disadvantages of the Internet of Things, and makes me so much more aware of how much we rely on it, as it can be so dangerous to our privacy and security. However, I don’t think it is a question of whether or not experts can create products with software that are completely confidential. I think this is already possible, yet they choose not to use their software this way. It should be simple to create a software that regulates a self-deleting mechanism, and is able to be installed into products to allow its users total confidentiality. A reason that this will not be the system’s default is most likely that keeping records of people’s past conversations could potentially catch and/or solve crimes. Although this could be good for society, I can’t help but wonder whether this would be against a person’s human rights, as they would not have been able to consciously allow the device to collect data of their life. I would really like to do more extensive research into how easy it is for courts to gain access to these records and how legal it is to use it against a person who is accused of a crime. Obviously there will be different laws for different products, as there will be further legal explanation in the clause of the product, but I would be interested to find out if the law can rise above these issues. Therefore I think the appropriate question to investigate would be this; in a quickly changing world of the Internet of Things, can we expect a world where privacy no longer exists? Cas00103 (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That is a very thought-provoking idea! However, whether this is true or not about trying to catch people out or prevent crimes, is this ethical? I can understand how this may be an extra step taken to prevent life-threatening crimes, however, I can't help but feel that if this is in the slightest bit true that we are foreshadowing George Orwell's 1984 novel with the concept of "Big Brother" and introducing the "Thought Police". With regards to the latest Facebook scandal, I think it is safe to say that privacy (online) cannot and will not ever exist. It is written into code and stored away, therefore unlike words, cannot be taken back. Whether or not if people like it, if they have accounts online, their data will be recorded, their location can be tracked and their search browsers may be available. I think the next step in preventing this invasion of privacy would be to educate people on the real risks associated with not only IoT but online activity. People are too willing to sign away their freedom in the "terms and conditions" to fully grasp that they are agreeing to be monitored. LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 01:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Reflective Account
Wikibooks describes itself as a collection of open-content textbooks. It is an online platform used by people to gather their research into one place, and is used for others to communicate and work with these people. It can be used for both writers and readers, as it is a place to contain information and research. Wikibooks emphasizes visibility because the whole idea is that anyone is allowed to edit someone else’s account as long as they have a Wikibooks account. This can be beneficial because it means, like our collaborative essay project, that authors can easily work together, and people can help add information that you haven’t learnt, or written yet. But the disadvantages are that anyone can change your work, whether they know about the subject or not. Although some people might edit your work as an attempt to help the process of your research, it is very simple to make an account and is available to everyone. Therefore, you do not know if someone will find your account and edit it just to mess up the information you have gathered. However, it is quite helpful for collaborative research as we could all edit each other’s work to make sure that we would get the best result. It was also useful so that we could sign off each piece that we wrote so our paragraphs wouldn’t get mixed up. Although our pieces were all written together, signing off our own parts kept the essay looking neat. The discussion page also meant that we could put all of our research in one place and use what others had studied. It was a place where we could all help each other. Because our question of research was quite specific, this meant that the topics we had each assigned ourselves to lapped over. The discussion page helped us to know exactly what topics people were going to write about, and this eradicated any confusion. Wikibooks fosters a community because of the fact that anyone can edit people’s work. Like I said before, the discussion page is very helpful as it allows people to work together to focus on a specific page.

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 2 contribs in total registered within minutes of each other on 27th March. This is hardly indicative of weeks’ worth of research, discussion and debate. It’s a shame, because those contribs show that you can write, that you can do the work to a good standard, and that you have something intelligent to say. Unfortunately, you didn’t seem to adhere to the brief.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * This was minimal.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * This was minimal.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * This was minimal.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * Too little evidence to provide meaningful assessment..

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory entries may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. They may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. They may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. They might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture and/or cursory reading. They may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.


 * There is some fairly good work in these exercise responses, but there’s clearly room for improvement. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * For example, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference. Nother way to improve marks would be to take more care I building your argument – you state in your annotated bibliography entry for example, that a limitation to the article in question is that not a lot of research has been conducted on privacy. This is simply not the case – in fact, privacy is one of the largest concerns of research in media studies today. Perhaps it was a matter of being more careful with your phrasing?


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, if a little brief, and you could have done with upping the number of these to solicit more engagement from other users. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work

General:
 * Reading and research: some evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material. Clearly more work could be done here.


 * Argument and analysis: See above comment – more care needed in building a well-supported argument.


 * Presentation: see above on use of wiki markup and organisational skills.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)