USA PATRIOT Act

The USA PATRIOT Act is an act signed by George W. Bush after the massive terrorist attack that took place in 2001. The name is an acronym which comes from "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". It was introduced in order to keep the wrongdoings under control and to stop the crimes before being commited. The most important stipulations are:

1. The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking.
2. The Patriot Act facilitated information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better "connect the dots."
3. The Patriot Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats.
4. The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes.

Taking into consideration the fact that the Act violates people's privacy, it is no wonder that a number of Americans doesn't agree with it. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is one of the organs that represents resistance. The members argue that there is not enough information about what can be done with retrieved data. Moreover, it is not specifically said who is responsible for the performed actions. The case of warrants is also not clarified enough. They can be issued to everyone and the circumstances for receiving one are not as strict as they were before. Generally, the main problem is about the provisions being too broad and, what comes after that, the freedom of an average citizen is considerably reduced. 

In my opinion, the Act can do more good than evil. Of course, the opponents have right about some issues and there is no doubt that some changes need to be introduced. The basic problem is that Americans are not informed enough and they simply fear of the unknown. The Internet security is not perfect and while people rebel against the government's actions that are performed for the greater good, they are not even aware that some hackers can have their data without them even knowing. 

sources 1), 2)

cute cat theory of digital activism & dancing pigs

Cute cat theory of digital activism - a theory developed by Ethan Zuckerman in 2008. It says that people on the Internet are more likely to use it for entertaining and social reasons than for becoming activists. Cute cat in the very name of this concept refers to all the low-value contents that users are interested in. The cats are present all over the Internet and there is no need to explain it to a person who uses the Internet at least from time to time. Among the most powerful engines that people use for their activities are Facebook, Twitter or Blogspot. On the other hand, such platforms can be used for political and social activism as well. By blocking them and, what comes after that, preventing people from such doings, governments cut off also the innocent 'good' users. The outcome is that it is harder to keep the protesters under control as they use those sites that are not dedicated solely to their needs. The picture may serve as a good example of how it looks like:

Dancing pigs - the term originated by by Edward Felten and Gary McGraw. It is used mostly by IT specialists to describe people's usual behavior on the Internet and their approach to the computer security. Whenever a user wants to visit a webpage or download a picture and, right before that act, sees a security alert, he/she will continue anyway. Dancing pigs is some kind of example in itself - when a person desires to see the dancing pigs, he/she will do it despite all the warnings about it not being safe for the computer. Of course, such reckless behavior may lead to serious damages, data leaks and so on.

graphical user interface - benefits

Graphical User Interface (GUI) comprises of (as the name suggests) images. It is kind of interface which focuses mostly on visual aspects of its programs. Thanks to it, software is easier to use as the user doesn't have to work with the programming language. Instead of typing the complicated codes and commands, as in the case of MS-DOS, GUI  introduces computer graphics as the main builder. Through clicking on a particular element, one is able to see the information they want or to perform a desirable operation. Let's enumerate the benefits of this kind of interface.

1) As I've already mentioned it is relatively easy to use it. Obviously it doesn't require as much skill as CLI (Command Line Interface). GUI is created to be user-friendly and to be of use to everybody. It is not designed for a specific group of people, who are trained in this particular field, as it was before. By clicking on objects displayed on screen, a person can do anything he/she wants and it is not a very demanding acitivity.

2) Higher productivity. Since a lot of effort isn't necessary while using Graphical User Interface, it's quite logical that the productivity is increased. Everything is on sight, there is a little possibilty to go wrong with something. What is more, one doesn't have to do things manually (writing a comand in order to perform an action) because a number of them is done automatically after pointing at an item.

3) It doesn't require multitasking. While using CLI, the user has to be very focused not to omit anything. A slight miastake in formatting may result in a huge failure. Multitasking is quite advanced in this case as one needs to remember not only about the particular task but also about every piece of code that stands behind it. In GUI you can aim attention at the goal you want to achieve without thinking about technical stuff.

4) What is also important is the looks. With all the colorful images, GUI provides much better experience than the raw lines of code. People often decide that one operating system is better than the other because of its appearance.

Examples of such interface : MS Windows, Mac OS

malware, spying, hackers

Nowadays, the Internet is present almost everywhere. In modern societies it is impossible to imagine a life without it. It has become a basic builder for a number of technologies and is often regarded as a backbone of many industries. Today almost everything has an IP address which makes it a target for hackers. If everything is computerized and digitalized, it is hardly possible to keep it under 100% surveillance. The perfect security doesn't exist hence the hackers can 'break into' every system.


By creating a malicious software (malware) programmers are able to take over the systems and steal their data or disrupt their workings. Right in the beginning, when the Internet was still in its infancy, such programs were created for amusing purposes. They were visible for the users of a particular device and they were harmless. Mostly malware was set up for fun, usually by some bored and skilled in the area teenagers. In 2003/2004 the software orientated on a profit appeared. Designers of previous versions saw that their programs could be a money-making machinery. Hobbysts started to work with spammers and now malware started to be something dangerous. Online criminals were born and they started to use their skill as an actual weapon. Malware today is created by criminals, hactivist gangs and governments.


Yes, it's verified information that goverments can be authors of such programs too. In the short documentary, Mikko Hyppönen says about the case when UK Intelligence attacked the Belgian telecommunications provider, Belgacom. The software stayed undetected by a long period of time. The malware looked like components of a Microsoft program. Its aim was to steal the data and manipulate the computers in the company. Thanks to Snowden's revelations it is known that the malware was highly advanced spy tool. The project has even its name, "Operation Socialist". Government Communications Headquarters intelligence service (that was behind the attack) presents their goals and says that the malware was created in order to help them understand Belgacom's groundwork and allow them to work more efficiently and develop their usage. All the details are not available which leaves the operation even more shady.


Sources:1), 2) 

business models of websites

The purpose of every big website is to earn money. Of course, we do not tend to pay attention to this aspect on the spot. The first thing a user does is looking at the content in which he/she is interested. Some people never ask themselves a question why a particular page is created. It is mainly because the answer is quite simple as money play the crucial role in today's world. But there is also another question to be asked - how do they earn money? It is definitely more absorbing one as the way is not always clearly visible. I want to differentiate three most popular techniques that the websited use to pay for themselves.

1) Advertising.

 One can encounter ads almost everywhere. It is the easiest way to support a website with the money coming from it. There is a number of examples, such as Facebook and Youtube. Ads may be frustrating especially when they are designed to our needs. Cooperating with other sites, Facebook can get data from them and display the ads suiting to a given user. And it is not only the Facebook that can do it. For example, when you searched for the shoes that you really like but they are too expensive and you cannot buy them, you will be seeing their picture at almost every website you go. It is quite disturbing if you ask me. Of course, one can add AdBlock to their browser and get rid of the ads in that way. But there are some websites that will not show you the content unless you disable it (kurnik.pl or any page with the sport coverage). It is like that because showing ads is the only source of their profit and they expect some kind of contribution from you.

2) Subscription option.

It is a business model that is based on paying money in order to get to the content of a website. This type of maintaining the websites is taken from the newspaper and magazine subscription. It became popular before the Internet era. One could pay for a year up front and then receive the magazine every month or so. Nowadays, the on-demand Internet streaming services, such as Netflix, are using it. One must pay an ordered amount of money to be able to watch their favorite TV shows. In this way the corporation gains profit and the user gets access to what he/she wants without ads.

3) Selling services.

Dropbox and iCloud can serve as the best examples here. These websites are platforms on which we can keep our files. They are some kind of a virtual place of storage. We can access our data there whenever we want as long as we have access to the Internet. Such websites are also connected with paying for the space. Often the access if free up to some gigabytes and if we want to upload more content we need to pay.

One of the websites I visit the most is Youtube. It uses the advertising business model. The ads are often displayed before a particular video that we want to see. Also there are propositions designed for every user individually. They are based on the history of films you watched before. It also may be counted as a way to gain profit as someone who was supposed to leave the site stays longer because the proposed video gained his/her interest. What is more, Youtube recently introduced Youtube Red which is some kind of a licence. As in the case of Netflix, one would have to pay some amount of money in order to watch some content. Of course, the option of free videos still remains but some others are to be introduced and be only available after payment. Lack of adertisemtns or the possibility to download a video on your mobile device are among other commodities coming from subscription option.

contentless medium?

"The electric light escapes attention as a communication medium just because it has no 'content.' And it makes it invaluable instance of how people fail to study media at all."  This quote comes from Marshall McLuhan's book - Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Although his focus was on 'old' media, his idea can be easily translated to new media too.

Is there any medium without the content? Focusing on this question for quite some time I started to think that such thing is impossible in new media. However, at one point I realized that I was thinking only about the Internet and things that are accessible thanks to it (blogs, online games, social networks, etc.). But we need a device to be able to use the Internet... And then the idea of computer having no content of its own came to my mind.
Nowadays, when our PC isn't connected to the Internet it seems to be useless. There are not many activities one can do without the precious cyperspace. Checking e-mail? Not possible. Reading news? No. Maybe at least talking to friends online? Not a chance. There are also games, right? Computer doesn't really provide them. They aren't present on your hard drive on the spot, you need to put them there. And often the case is that despite the fact one has their game on a CD, the Internet connection is necessary for playing. And if not necessary, there are some extras available online or after registering the game. Even working with the use of the computer involves installing a software. Of course there are some text editors provided but their quality is poor in comparision to the professional ones.

This example may be not as obvious and as clear as McLuhan's but there is definitely something to it. Let everybody ask themselves a question : "Don't I feel powerless without the Internet on my computer?" I'm sure that in most cases the answer is positive.

participatory culture

Over the past few years the notion of culture within media has been gradually changing. When the mass media were introduced, the focus was mainly on 'consuming' them. At the beginning there was no way of interaction between senders and receivers. Often, the definitions themselves say that mass media are to deliver information to huge amount of people with no immediate feedback given. The situation started to change with the arrival of new media.

In 21st century participatory culture was born. The Internet is being built everyday and everybody can become an active builder. Forums, blogs, chats, social networks - they all exist because of the users' content. It is possible for an average person to start recording videos, put them on Youtube and make money out of it. It is possible for a man to read opinions on tyres and for a woman to share her thoughts about a new lipstick. Participation is free and easy, all one has to have is the willingness to be a part of culture.
But the Internet is not the only platform for displaying one's contribution. Users are creators of commercial culture too. Seeing that "The Hunger Games" was such a success, the producers decided to create as many parts as possible. Basing on the popularity of the first movie, it became obvious that the others to come would have even more viewers. Thanks to the network sites, people are able to evaluate the films and express their opinions. Those who are responsible for creating movies can follow the trends and come up with an idea of a sure blockbuster. Of course there are advantages and disadvantages of such proceedings but it is the subject for a longer discussion.

The shift that took place is from consumer to participatory culture. The thing to highlight here is the idea of interactivity. New media are all about being accessible to everyone. Deciding on and shaping the content is one of the primary goals of today's media culture. Even the 'old' media try to catch up with the progress and invent ways for people to be an active part in the creating process.