The Impact Of Cyberstalking with Emma Short

During our last lecture we had speaker Emma Short in to talk to us about the impact of cyber stalking. The lecture was both eye opening and quite scary; during this Blog post I will explain and develop the points Emma made. I also will use the statistics Emma gave us to inform readers on the large number of myths that originate from cyber stalking and will attempt to put the rumours behind us all!

“Stalking behaviour” is a form of unwanted intrusions to such an extent that the recipient fears for their safety. These actions could be both online, through persistent behaviour such as continuous emails or comments or the original form of stalking, actions in person. Ultimately, Cyber stalkers are obsessive and show this through their actions. Online cyber stalking is an old problem through a new medium. Emma described stalking itself as an “old age problem” and further described the types of the attack as “identity theft and, or the posting of false profiles”. It became clear through the detailed analysis of a stalker and their behaviour that you do not have to have direct contact; the events merely could just be threats. Similarly, the transferring of an attack to the victim’s relatives or provoking others to attack the victims can both be considered further stalkish behaviour.  

A common example of cyber bullying occurs daily on the social network site Facebook. Through studies on this specific form of abuse, answers indicated that people tend to feel “anonymous” and “confident” behind the computer screen. Regardless, of the fact they can still be traced and identified. It is commonly known that is today’s society people tend to miss represent themselves online, Emma further explained that it is easily done for those with a naïve outset. 58% of people have been contacted by people who claim they are of a different identity, but it is in fact the same person.

Rumours are often spread about stalkers and how to deal with their obsessive behaviour. Emma took time to identify to us what common comments and answers are in fact myths. It is directly a myth that cyber stalking affects only a small age group, it has been statistically proven that it affects between 14 and 64 year olds! After strongly emphasising on this point, it became clear to me that it is over an extremely large age group and can not be avoided nor should it be ignored by those of a professional service (I.e. the police).  It also is a myth that you can not catch cyber stalkers, through the power of the internet; we are able to identity who is delivering the information. Again, the common myth is that if you confront a stalker, they will ultimately stop. There is no evidence to suggest this is true, if anything it could encourage their behaviour.

The most important rumour that is often spread regarding the impact of cyber stalking is that there “isn’t a significant impact of the victim from cyber stalking.” This couldn’t be more untrue if it formally tried!! The impact cyber stalking has on females is just the same as males. The abuse is cross gender. Genders ultimately fear different things; it is commonly known that women fear physical injury more than men, but both are directly harmed through the actions of a stalker.

The impact cyber stalking has on the victim noticeably is colossal. People are known to suffer from the post-traumatic stress disorder after unloading the abuse directly. Emma suggested that similarly the treatment for one that has suffered from cyber stalking is minimal. Victims often show a case of hyper active behaviour as well as most commonly an emotional shut down. With all these illness affecting someone, there is chance that suicide could be an option for the victim who has been affected directly, continuously over a long period of time. 50% of people who have been cyber stalked catastrophically fit the suicide category.

The statistics and information delivered from Emma regarding the impact and actions proceeded through cyber stalking are both shocking and outrageous. It seems unbelievable that such a despicable event occurs prominently in every day life, with no means to an end. Cyber stalking is very much influenced through the popularity of the internet, so for the future, minimising cyber stalking seems virtually impossible. As technology grows, it seems so will cyber stalking.

Metadata, Tagging and Folksonomies

Without realising, the majority of our time on the Internet is spent tagging. With this in mind, to begin with it is important to distinguish the difference between the Internet and the World Wide Web. The World Wide Web (the www in the html address’ of different sites) supports a very distributed way of thinking about the world. The web itself isn’t specifically structured; it is merely just the collaboration of everyone’s individual searches.  When constructing a search on sites such as Google, the answers Google consider the most relevant appear at the top, but our searches are all personalised from our IP address. This is furthermore an example of tagging, the sites recognise our previous history and determine the extended answer around this. The small actions completed by us throughout our internet usage calculates our future answers.

According to Tech Terms.com, “Metadata describes other data. It provides information about a certain items content.” Further “Web pages often include metadata in the form of meta tags. Description and keywords meta tags are commonly used to describe the web pages content.” Metadata is a form of tagging and searching; metadata is technically the specific data that describes other forms of data. It is in fact possible to view the metadata for every site on the web. An example of this is indicated below.....

Ultimately, we do not control our personal tagging. The majority of tags that take place we are generally oblivious to, or unaware of. Tagging can occur, as a former way of organising your blog posts, another example that appears to be present in our lives, is human tagging on Facebook or Twitter. Like metadata, the tags allow the user to add various links. We can tag through both videos and photos as a form of human tagging; additionally we can also tag through additional searches. These explorations can occur on twitter, an example of this is the search of a trending topic through the use of a hash tag (#). It is also possible to invent a tag to suit the agenda of your tweet, this is formally creating your own search through the use of metadata. The photo below is an example of me creating a trend that has not appeared on Twitter before..... 

There are, like many different aspects in life, pros and cons for the use of tagging on the Internet. The pros mainly include our ability to understand our knowledge further. It additionally allows us to track where we are by the use of individuals tagging. Of course, the use of knowing where someone is can also count as a disadvantage to the use of tagging. Someone’s privacy is exposed and it could furthermore cause a threat on the specific individual. 

A Labour of Love?: Open Source Movement

In our lecture we discussed the concept of the Open Source Movement. It came to my attention that this impression mainly revolves around the composed movements on the world-wide web. It is clear that the Open Source movement is a dynamic and fundamental part of the software scene in the world at current. Hundreds of thousands of programmes world wide support the Open Source device informally, by participating in the maintenance and updating their software. More formally, “the movement has come to be spearheaded by an organisation named the Open Source Inititative, a nonprofit association based in California that owns the trade mark ‘Open Source’” (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~l38613dw/readings/OpenSourceOverview.html). The Open Source movement is still very much a new concept, but as discussed in my lecture it holds a great deal of potential for the future development of a variety of software’s.  

The most known example of software originating from the Open Source movement is Linux, the “computer operating system assembled by the model of free and open source software development and distribution” (Wikipedia definition).

The video embedded below shows both a clear definition of what open source movement is and examples that could possibly lead from it.......



The first copyright law was passed on the 10^th April 1710, with the Queen Anne Statue. It passed almost immediately, and the purpose of this was to protect the work of authors. The statue itself was the origin of all modern copyright laws. For the United States of America, the first official copyright legalisation was passed on the 25^th May 1790, much after English laws. A discussion made prominent in our lecture was that, although Benjamin Franklin was rumoured to have started the idea of copyright, it was in fact present in the UK before then.

We may all be aware of what copyright is, but in general our understanding of what copy left is, is quite uneducated. According to a simplified definition on Wikipedia “Copyright is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to offer the right to distribute copies and modified versions of a work and requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work. In other words, copy left is a general method for making a program (or other work) free (libre)”. I thought that it would useful to discuss the development of copy left, over and above referring to the laws revolving around copyright in this direct post. Copyleft type licenses are a novel use of existing copyright law to ensure a work remains freely available.

To conclude, I want to refer back to my initial point about Open Source Technology and highlight how we all directly interact with it on a daily basis. Examples of these relations include; logging into BREO to check our timetables at University or simply logging into sites such as Facebook or Twitter. The interaction we have with Open Source Movement is prominent in our life, and through development of technology, it is only going to increase further. Having a clear understanding of what these various forms of technology are, will furthermore enable our knowledge to expand on different examples in the future. This knowledge reduces how oblivious we also are, to the former background of technology.

Privacy, Surveillance, Everyware & Ubiquitous Computing

The impact technology has on our everyday lives in considerably significant. If you were to picture the influence technology has in our homes, the impact it has would come as a surprise. The majority of things we touch everyday are the product of technological invention. Where I am, sitting at my laptop, various forms of technology are at hands reach. My phone, my tv, my tv remote and additionally my iPad. Furthermore, we are living in a society which is highly technologised. In urban spaces, we are connected with devices of technology that we probably are unaware of. Devices such a CCTV is a devise which allows our movements to be monitored and avoids the general aspect of privacy and is further a constructed piece of technology.

CCTV cameras ability to recognise faces and identity exactly who it is causes a lot of conspiracy. Although the devices are merely just conforming to the roles of technology, many people raise the issue of weather you should be entitled to an element of privacy when walking down the street. This issue, however can be looked at in two lights, when it come to issue such as terrorism the ability to recognise someone’s face through the means of CCTV is considered quite obviously extremely necessary.

The idea that you are “free” to search the internet and explore many different sites is something that the majority of people believe is the case. However, through different studies and a clear distinction of our ability to search the internet, it allows me to understand that this is in fact not the case. Our freedom to search is restricted through devices such as “parental control” and googles ability to recognise a computers IP address allowing the site to personalise the answers to your specific search. So, in many cases two people would more than likely receive different search results, even though they searched the same query.  This reinforces the answer that the internet isn’t a huge free space; we are in fact, just like walking down the street, restricted and unable to have an element of privacy. Everything done on the internet is recorded and it would always be possible to track searches back.

Parental control is a structured organisation from many search engines allowing parents to control their children’s use on the internet, this furthermore reinforces the ideology that our searches are always monitored allowing us to additionally have no privacy. However, it has been proved that these devices are insignificant because they can be hacked.

Everyday, for the majority of our days, we will interact with a computer device without even realising. This supports the idea that the use of technology is current in our lives and this furthermore will remain the case/if not get increasingly get worse for the rest of our lives. It is virtually impossible to not interact with a computer through a day, interactions include your phones automatically connecting to local wi-f zones, going through electric doors, using phones, watching television… The list is endless. Subconsciously, these ideas are automatically linked to the limited privacy in our lives. Using an oyster card is an example of a computer device, but it also tracks your movement, limiting ones privacy.

No technology is safe in our lives, they can all be hacked and altered. It is impossible to switch directly off a device, you affectively would always be able to track its movements regardless of weather its power is turnt to standby.

Recently a development which allows an interaction between emotions and technology has been invented for iPhone users. “Sirii”, the new device constructed by apple allowing users to interact with their mobile device asking specific questions receiving answers specific to their needs. This interaction further emphasises a devices ability to communicate with a human and engage with emotions.

Issues of Autonomy & Intelligence: Robots & AI

Human beings are known to have a sense of self, this being the main difference between humans and machines. In today’s society it is possible for us to form and explore our identities online, by doing so we can also fight with or against AI (Artificial Intelligence) characters. Similarly, as a generation it is also possible to form a variety of identities online, such are formed through Facebook, Twitter and other online sites. The presentations of ones self could be constructed to be different in comparison to our live twitter feed; it remains possible for you to build and form different personalities online.

The invention of “chatterbots” has ultimately had a real impact on the development of technology through time. A chatterbot “is a computer program designed to simulate an intelligent conversation with one of more human users via auditory or textual methods.” (Wikipedia), most will remember the interaction of “Smarterchild” on the social networking messenger software MSN. There are many other examples of chatterbots such as “Eliza” and “A.L.I.C.E”, these formally all construct and deliver the same message.

A specific problem that has become noticeable through the development of technology is that as humans we affectively are becoming cyborgs. Instead of rationally thinking, we are using Google and other search engines. The majority of searches done daily, or weekly, ultimately we have more than likely done before. With this in mind, if we were to take a moment to think, we wouldn’t have to use the internet and our questions could be answered.

How does digital computing and cyberspace blur the boundaries between what we perceive to be human or machine? ….. A difficult question with a variety of answers, it may seem far fetched and slightly exaggerated, but it is noticeable that the boundaries are significantly blurred in comparison to years before. With relation to the development of chatterbots, this boundary is becoming blurred to a level where it would be possible to be unable to distinguish the difference between a human and a machine. The machines ability to construct a conversation with a human allows this distinction to become difficult, if not impossible. With this in mind though, surly there are some human qualities, in addition to basic conversation making, that machines will never be able to replicate. A human’s basic ability to think is an action I believe a machine can not complete, however this doesn’t affectively rule out the chances of it happening in the future.

This leads me onto my final point for this blog post which is the complex definition of a robot. One of many rhetorical questions which occurs almost instantly is Can you even define a robot? The invention of robots is increasing along side technologies development, so a simple definition of this product to society is virtually impossible. Overall, a robot is ultimately something that is pragmatic. A robot could be described and defined as an unmanned fighting platform for services in the army, this device could furthermore outfight humans. Generally they can have many different functions and capabilities. This proves my initial point that the definition of a robot is difficult, due it conforming to many different roles in society not just one. There is no denying the fact that robots are very much present in our lives, and without them we would not have as many functioning mechanisms as we do now.