User talk:LaurenCC

With the occasional Snapchat post and my Pinterest account making an appearance every blue moon, my online visibility is limited. Apart from using Messenger religiously, I am not very visible on Facebook. In fact, I haven’t updated my profile picture since early September 2015, and cannot remember the last time I posted anything on my wall. My account shows information regarding where I study, the city I live in, where I come from, gender, siblings and my relationship status. It also shows the day and month I was born, whilst hiding the year. However, this information is only available to people who are Facebook friends on my account and a lot of my information has been made private, such as my mobile number and email. I am in control of who sees my information on Facebook as it is optional and have some control over what I get tagged in or what gets posted on my wall, however, I do not have control over whether Facebook uses my information for advertisers. After learning about Facebook in one of my ethical marketing seminars, I try to avoid putting information on Facebook and limit my activity. I use Facebook mostly because I have an older brother and friends living in Australia, as well as a means of communication with friends here. On the other hand, I have an active photography/art blog on Instragram, which shows pictures from my travels and drawings I have done. This account both gives my followers and non-followers information on what courses I study and, of course, where I have been travelling. I was inspired to make to make this blog last year when I was sitting in a marketing lecture which was about “Marketing Yourself”. The blog itself doesn’t give away a lot of information about me but enough to exhibit both my hobbies of photography and art. I believe it is something I can show future employers that express my creative side and my penchant for travel and exploring. As for control over what information gets put on my Instragram account, I have complete control over that. Nevertheless, I am not sure and do not have control of what Instragram does with the information they possess about me. The other accounts I hold are on Tumblr, Pinterest, Skype and Snapchat, all of which I rarely use and have hardly or no information about me, apart from my name. While I do believe I am not that visible online, I tend to look at my mobile a lot and am aware that being visible online has become very significant in today’s society, contributing to the development of technology and the need to be connected anywhere and everywhere. This desire has led to the Internet of Things, with the development of smart cities, smart homes, connectivity in cars and devices such as the Fitbit. This sort of online visibility will enable a lot more information about a person to become available, such as where they travel, their bodily measurements and their daily habits.

Annotated Bibliography: ‘Risks of Trusting the Physics of Sensors: Protecting the Internet of Things with embedded security’
(1) Fu, K. & Xu, W., 2018: ‘Risks of Trusting the Physics of Sensors: Protecting the Internet of Things with embedded security’, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p20-23.

(2) In this article Fu and Xu examine and expose the dangers, threats and liabilities of the Internet of Things, specifically autonomous systems, as well as deliberating transduction attacks. (3) Fu and Xu use examples to further prove their points about transduction attacks, such as the DolphinAttack, as well as discussing their findings with manufacturers and gathering expert suggestions on how to overcome these problems. (4) The main research of this article centres on physics and how it is used to manipulate sensor technology. Suggestions for overcoming this include a change from component-centric security to system-centric tolerance of untrustworthy components. (5) The topics discussed in this article are very useful to my research, especially when reviewing the threats and problems with the Internet of Things. This article can help to discuss potential risks of smart cities and technology. (6) The core restrictions to this article is that is primarily about autonomous systems and the physics of sensor technology. While it scientifically discusses transduction and security attacks, it fails to consider how these incidents impact individuals and groups, (7) and as a result, needs to further examine how these breaches of security pose as a threat and can impact society. (8) Therefore, this article will help to further develop an argument on the threats and issues of the Internet of Things, however, will not be the base of my whole discussion.

(1) Citation (2) Introduction (3) Aims & Research (4) Scope (5) Usefulness (6) Limitations (7) Conclusion (8) Reflection LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments: This is a very intriguing post that is directly linked to our group research! Physics is something I did not put enough consideration into when thinking about this topic, yet it is certainly something important for me to remember when doing my research for the task. I will definitely look into this article and this piece would be very useful if smart cities is discussed in our essay. These sensors, that can be so easily damaged or manipulated should not be something that we can rely on in our ever changing culture. It is a scary prospect that we are expected to entrust our lives to this kind of technology. It is perhaps a question of whether or not the government are working closely enough with these engineers in order to protect citizens' safety and privacy. Civilians need to have confidence in this change in culture in order to fully take advantage of all it has to offer. Perhaps this will come with time. Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Reading from your annotation, this sounds like a really useful article for our project on dealing with the dangers of the Internet of Things. There so many ways in which the security of technology can fail, and with our every day lives being so involved with the internet, it is so important that we fully investigate these issues - this article being something I believe can help us in the process of achieving. Although the article itself may be intended to make us aware of the problems with sensor technology, there should be several avenues that we can still explore and gain some informative research from. Fu and Xu seem to prioritize the Internet of Things in their research so it will be interesting to read their other articles related to this subject. Cas00103 (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought about the physics behind it either, however, it is very interesting to see how it plays a role in security attacks. As the concept of Smart cities is an increasing trend, I believe it is vital for not only the developers/ manufacturers involved but the public as well, to be aware of this threat and should learn ways of overcoming it. With the newer generations being born into a world already full of this advanced technology, there seems to be a lack of understanding and interest about just how much information can be uncovered through hacking and cyber attacks and the consequences behind them. This is true for much of the older generations too, who simply do not grasp its power either. Therefore, I agree with you about the Government taking extra precautions when it comes to IoT, educating the public about it and also how to protect themselves when a cyber attack happens. In researching the IoT, have you come across more issues and threats? LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, there should be more of an awareness about these threats, especially with physics being an aspect involved with threats involving IoT. It is very interesting, especially since many people lack in-depth knowledge of physics (including myself), how this can impact us. With sensor technology becoming an increasing technology used in shops, our homes and cities, it is crucial for society to become more alert to how it can be used against us and can counteract its benefits. Through your research what have you found to be other challenging aspects of IoT? LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely! Physics is such a huge part of the Internet of Things, and with the right knowledge, the data that these systems collect from our lives can be so easily hacked. Another issue is hacking cameras. With so many products now coming with cameras attached to them, hackers can find ways to collect data from them. For example, on a laptop people presume that if they were being watched through their camera, the little light would be on to indicate that the camera is turned on but this is not the case. There are cunning ways that hackers can get around this and make it so that the victim would have no idea they are being watched. This goes hand in hand with mic monitoring. Victims would have no idea if their microphone was switched on so people could be watching or listening to you. This is dangerous for anyone because this could lead hackers to discover their location but is especially dangerous to children. These hackers can then sell this footage of their victims, and this leads to people being stalked. This can be easily solved by covering up cameras and microphones but the issue is spreading awareness about these threats. Raising awareness can easily solve the opposing problem. Cas00103 (discuss • contribs) 11:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we are not educated enough about this topic. Our lack of knowledge puts our information at risk. Have you read about the breach in security on Facebook by a group of people working for political figures at Cambridge? This is an extremely recent example of exploitation of public information, that ultimately has massive effects in the real world. If social media accounts are not secure, how can we trust our information is safe with any technology advancements. So far, other than issues of privacy and hacking, I have come across with issues of trying to keep legislations up to date concerning 'IoT'. It is increasingly difficult to maintain Civil Rights when there are so many grey areas. It is possible that I would like to make reference to this in our group essay if I can find enough scope to talk about it! Here is a helpful link I found recently about the internet of things in general, but there is an extensive section about problems, this has a chapter about security issues! https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ISOC-IoT-Overview-20151221-en.pdf Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read about this incident in the news! I completely agree, it is scary how much personal information is being used without conscious consent. With regards to our collaborative essay about IoT, I am struggling to find the line between IoT and just the internet in general. With researching cybersecurity attacks 2018, I came across an article discussing the "7 cybersecurity trends to watch out for in 2018" (https://www.csoonline.com/article/3250086/data-protection/7-cybersecurity-trends-to-watch-out-for-in-2018.html) which seems to have the argument that most IoT technology does not, yet, hold any "valuable data" for Ransomware. However, it does discuss the issues of hacking, very much like the WannaCry ransomware attack, and how this can become a great inconvenience to many people. It is interesting to see what issues there truely are in regards to IoT and what people consider IoT. LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is rather confusing where the internet technologies become 'IoT'. This is something we will have to be careful with in our research! I will take a look at this article as it will be helpful for me to understand this topic better. With the never ending developments in this area, it is inevitable that we will be confused by all the terminology. Hopefully through this project we will be able to draw conclusions as to what counts as internet and what it 'IoT' and how important 'IoT' is in things such as hacking, privacy and dependency. Dcg00003 (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative Essay Reflective Account
Wikibooks is an online platform that allows people to both openly put information/knowledge into it and edit other peoples' posts, thus encouraging a "knowledge-building community". Having been told multiple times throughout high school not to trust Wikipedia information I have tended to avoid using the main site or associated sites in general. This has been a brand new experience which was challenging to navigate and get to grips with, to begin with, as well as being a very rewarding one. I have learned so much about Wikibooks such how to add topics, edit as well as comment on others pieces of work. Using Wikibooks to discuss and create a collaborative essay with my group, Media Maidens, was an interesting and unique process. As most of our discussions were posted on our discussion page, visibility online was extremely highlighted. In some ways, this was an effective and efficient way to communicate with my peers and to view others' work but on the other hand, lacked personal touches and in some cases, a bit daunting as what you post can not only be seen by the group but by anyone who cares to look at it. This added pressure to ensure that the discussions were of value and therefore eliminated the "no bad ideas" process of decision making. Visibility on Wikibooks is both a blessing and a curse in regards to the collaborative essay. A blessing in the sense that you could view how the other groups were getting on, look for inspiration and see how the rest of the group members are doing and a curse in the sense that anyone could see and judge your work. Wikibooks was helpful for collaborative research as members of the group were able to help edit pieces of work, suggest sources or topics as well as being able to post a direct link (to helpful websites). Finding relevant sources was a lot easier since you could view other groups with similar topics sources, as well as individuals' annotated bibliographies, thus being more effective when evaluating the sources. Using Wikibooks for the Digital Media and Culture module was effective in creating a sense of community amongst the students. It allowed for people to comment on others' work, which normally wouldn't have occurred, but specifically made the collaborative group closer as we could all discuss topics, share ideas and help one another to ensure we did the best job possible. For example, on our Media Maidens discussion page, we would share links to helpful and relevant sources to one another. The online collaborative represents a digital commons as it urges people to express their ideas, creating unique information through self-expression with the help of some sources. That information is then built on by other individuals, either through editing or commenting. However, using this information can be risky if it has been taken from other peoples' work without citing or referencing it. Overall, using Wikibooks was a lot of fun when it came to the collaborative essay as it both challenged and benefited our group. We were able to discuss ideas and make suggestions within our own time, which couldn't be done with face-to-face discussions. We were able to help each other and stay in communication the whole time, creating a sense of community, which wouldn't have been there if we were told to go away and write an essay on our own. It also helped that we could get guidance from other groups. Though challenging, it allowed me to gain experience and knowledge of using a less straightforward online platform. I would definitely think about using Wikibooks again to help write a collaborative essay as it was very effective. LaurenCC (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments: I think your reflective account is very interesting. I agree that this form of assignment was quite challenging, it seems that Wikibooks is quite difficult to use and I still haven't really got the hang of it. It requires you to have some more advanced knowledge of computers which unfortunately I do not have! It was a different type of assessment however so it was pretty interesting to start something new that I hadn't experienced before. Overall I think we did a good job in our collaborative essay! Using Wikibooks definitely made it easier for us to sort and organise our information that we had. It was very useful that we could share links, like you said, and that we could comment and edit other people's work in the group. Obviously because of the way that Wikibooks works, anyone was able to edit and comment on our work (helpful or not). As well as helping each other find sources that were relevant to their chosen topic, it also meant that we knew exactly what types of things they were going to talk about. Although our question was good, I feel that it was still broad and there was so many different things to talk about and so many different news articles to go into. So it was helpful that we didn't accidentally talk about the same problems or talk about the same topics. To conclude my comment, I think we're all quite happy to have finished this assessment on Wikibooks as it was quite stressful. It was fairly difficult to use and the deadlines were very frequent. However it was a nice way to work with the module, I hope you thought the same. Cas00103 (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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(although it ought to be said that you are operating at the uppermost of this descriptor, and narrowly missed out on a move up, for reasons outlined below):
 * Poor. Among other things, poor contributions may just offer links without real comment or apparent point. They may offer nothing more than poor-quality synopsis or description of material of dubious relevance. They may have serious clarity problems (including dead links, random graphics) which affect comprehension (or even worse, admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement). They might be off-topic, private trivia, or of unclear relevance. The wiki markup formatting will be of a poor standard.

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 6 days registered as having logged a contrib. Most of these seem to occur on 27th March, and the majority of these consist of draft work, which is not so much as discussed as drafted and then pasted into the essay page afterwards (therefore I’ve have to largely discount these as I am unable to mark the same work twice). That said, there are a few smaller contribs earlier on that suggest that, when you did engage, these seemed to be significant entries in terms of moving the project forward, including page organisation and essay planning.

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


 * Several contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, with only two classed “substantial” – some of these were discursive and meaningful, but it’s largely a case of too little, too late. Conducting sustained and transparent discussion on the discussion page would have vastly improved your work, as well as the work of the group.

•	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 the strongest element of your contribution, perhaps. Some evidence to suggest that you pushed your arguments and encouraged others to comment/respond, but I would have liked to have seen much more of this.

•	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


 * There some organisation of the discussion page on your part, especially early on, less so later.

•	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.


 * You conducted yourself well, as far as the evidence suggests.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 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:


 * Good. Among other things, good entries will make a clear point in a clear way. They will relate concepts to original examples in a straightforward fashion. They will make effective use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons). They may also demonstrate a broader understanding of the module's themes and concerns, and are likely to show evidence of reading and thinking about the subject material. The wiki markup formatting will be very clear.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, so although there is some excellent work in evidence (your annotated bibliography exercise response was particularly good – one of the best ones of the year!) a little improvement will go a long way to attaining a higher mark. 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.


 * 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.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good throughout. You do occasionally frame some of your responses to other people’s work (or their comments on your own) as questions to solicit discussion. There is also evidence that you are beginning to discuss in an open and critical way – that is to say, you've responded to what other people are saying and are contributing meaningfully to discussion.

General:
 * Reading and research: fairly strong evidence of critical engagement with set materials; evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material.


 * Argument and analysis: a very well written set of responses. well-articulated and well-supported argument; evidence of critical thinking.


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

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)