The word "spoof" means to hoax, trick, or deceive. Therefore, in the IT world, spoofing refers tricking or deceiving computer systems or other computer users. This is typically done by hiding one's identity or faking the identity of another user on the Internet.
I believe that there should be freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs for everyone. Each individual should have right of having privacy. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom of belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Spoofing can take place on the Internet in several different ways. One common method is through e-mail. E-mail spoofing involves sending messages from a bogus e-mail address or faking the e-mail address of another user. Fortunately, most e-mail servers have security features that prevent unauthorized users from sending messages. However, spammers often send spam messages from their own SMTP, which allows them to use fake e-mail addresses. Therefore, it is possible to receive e-mail from an address that is not the actual address of the person sending the message.
Spoofing can be done by anyone. Spammers earn money sending massive volumes of email. They can be competitors trying to cripple your business or disgruntled employees or irate customers out to "teach you a lesson." Attacks can be personally motivated or just random.
I think that there should be no spoofing because it can cause some criminal acts like hacking. If the government ensures privacy of each individual then there is no need of spoofing.
http://www.techterms.com/definition/spoofing
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
TECHNOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Freedom and utilization of the resources is the key factor discussed by the author Lawrence Lessig in this writing, also highlighting the freedom for creativity. The law of copyright protects the rights of individuals who have come up with innovative and creative ideas. Lawyers check whether the permission could be granted or not. Less control over creativity and copyrighting leads to high costs which is burden for the innovators.
The most powerful innovation over the times has been brought about by the technological revolution. The internet is expected to change over time but not go out of sight. While understanding the revolution and its effects, something really important is left out but yet nobody is able to notice this disappearance. There is this blind spot in our culture. This blindness will harm the environment of innovation. Not only the innovation of internet entrepreneurs be effected, but also the innovation of authors or artists. This blindness would in turn bring changes to the internet, undermining its potential for building something new. The struggle against these changes has given rise to the struggle between ‘old’ and ‘new’. Those who prospered under the old regime are threatened by the internet. The environment designed to enable the new is being transformed to protect the old.
Other constraints to innovation apart from economic constraints are created by law such as intellectual property as well as other government granted limited rights. Although everything would be available but what gets offered will be what just fits within the current model of the systems of distribution. The future could be either like our present or not easy to describe because of the fact that nobody can predict how the internet will develop. The elements of this future would be the consequences of falling costs, which would in turn reduce the barriers to creativity. The changes that occur in the costs of production and the costs of distribution would be the result of going digital. Digital technologies create and reproduce reality more efficiently than non digital.
Except from some important subject matter constraints law had no role in saying how one person could take and remake the work of others. Digital technology could enable an extraordinary range of ordinary people to become part of the creative process. ‘Consumer’ is not someone who just consumes a product. Lessig argues that it is the move from the life a ‘consumer’ i.e. passive and fed to a life where one can individually and collectively participate in making something new. Technology enables a whole generation to create and through the infrastructure of internet to share the creativity with others. This is the art of building free culture. This network would not only keep the barriers to creativity low but also would leave the network open to the widest range of commercial innovation.
For a free or controlled society, one must consider the resources. There are free resources available for taking and controlled resources for which the permission of someone is needed before use. Whether the state or the market works best in controlling the resources? is of most concern. Mostly, the market trumps the state. But, twentieth century has taught that the dominance of private over state ordering is better. But today’s concern is whether the resources should be free at all? A ‘free’ resource is which is either used without permission or the permission one needs is granted neutrally. Free resources encourage novelty, creativity and social equality. Resource production and resource access do not talk of each other. Production and consumption are totally different.
Some resources should be restricted no matter what. An example of such resources is those resources called ‘mine’. If one didn’t have access to these, one would have little incentive to produce them. Nothing can better demonstrate the importance of free resources to innovation and creativity than internet. It is the simplest reply to those who argue that control is necessary if innovation is to occur.
The most powerful innovation over the times has been brought about by the technological revolution. The internet is expected to change over time but not go out of sight. While understanding the revolution and its effects, something really important is left out but yet nobody is able to notice this disappearance. There is this blind spot in our culture. This blindness will harm the environment of innovation. Not only the innovation of internet entrepreneurs be effected, but also the innovation of authors or artists. This blindness would in turn bring changes to the internet, undermining its potential for building something new. The struggle against these changes has given rise to the struggle between ‘old’ and ‘new’. Those who prospered under the old regime are threatened by the internet. The environment designed to enable the new is being transformed to protect the old.
Other constraints to innovation apart from economic constraints are created by law such as intellectual property as well as other government granted limited rights. Although everything would be available but what gets offered will be what just fits within the current model of the systems of distribution. The future could be either like our present or not easy to describe because of the fact that nobody can predict how the internet will develop. The elements of this future would be the consequences of falling costs, which would in turn reduce the barriers to creativity. The changes that occur in the costs of production and the costs of distribution would be the result of going digital. Digital technologies create and reproduce reality more efficiently than non digital.
Except from some important subject matter constraints law had no role in saying how one person could take and remake the work of others. Digital technology could enable an extraordinary range of ordinary people to become part of the creative process. ‘Consumer’ is not someone who just consumes a product. Lessig argues that it is the move from the life a ‘consumer’ i.e. passive and fed to a life where one can individually and collectively participate in making something new. Technology enables a whole generation to create and through the infrastructure of internet to share the creativity with others. This is the art of building free culture. This network would not only keep the barriers to creativity low but also would leave the network open to the widest range of commercial innovation.
For a free or controlled society, one must consider the resources. There are free resources available for taking and controlled resources for which the permission of someone is needed before use. Whether the state or the market works best in controlling the resources? is of most concern. Mostly, the market trumps the state. But, twentieth century has taught that the dominance of private over state ordering is better. But today’s concern is whether the resources should be free at all? A ‘free’ resource is which is either used without permission or the permission one needs is granted neutrally. Free resources encourage novelty, creativity and social equality. Resource production and resource access do not talk of each other. Production and consumption are totally different.
Some resources should be restricted no matter what. An example of such resources is those resources called ‘mine’. If one didn’t have access to these, one would have little incentive to produce them. Nothing can better demonstrate the importance of free resources to innovation and creativity than internet. It is the simplest reply to those who argue that control is necessary if innovation is to occur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)