1. Does the topic relate to ITGS? Explain how!
Yes, this topic does relate to ITGS because Microsoft officials said that they will experiment with selling marketers the right to place ads in Windows 7 themes on users' desktops. This means that those marketers will sell their brands and products using two of Microsoft's (NASDAQ: MSFT) graphical customization capabilities in Windows 7 and Internet Explorer.
2. Is the area of impact one that has not been addressed in a previous portfolio piece? Which area of impact have you already done? Which area of impact does this piece fit?
Yes, the area of impact is one that has not been addressed in a previous portflio piece. I have already done the politics and government and health areas of impact. However, this portfolio piece fits in with business and employment.
3. Was the news item published no more than six months before you started the course (you started September 2008)? What is the publication date of the article?
Yes the news item was published no more than six months before I started the course. The publication date of the article was November 13, 2009.
4. Does the article raise one or more social or ethical issues related to an IT system? State clearly the social or ethical issue.
Yes this article raises one or more social oor ethical issues related to an IT system because with Microsoft having the ability to choose which marketers will display what info on each theme then that allows Microsoft the potential power to disregard some companies and only allow others in which violates the equality between each future marketer. Also, with businesses displaying ads on Microsoft themes, that makes the possibility of actual store businesses losing money a reality because the ads on the themes will probably be displaying ads for businesses that are online and not in an actual building.
5. Is the problem clear? Explain the problem.
Yes, the problem is clear. Microsoft wants the ability to have potential marketers place ads on their themes but the question is for how much and how often will they be able to fo it for.
6. Can you think of two viable solutions? Briefly state the possible solutions.
Yes, I can think of two variable solutions. One is if Microsoft does allow marketers to place ads on their themes then they should make the price of placing said ad universal no matter who the business is. Second, if Microsoft will allow every marketer that has placed an ad on a theme the same amount of time then the potential problem of playing favorites will be taken away.
7. Do you have access to a range of resources on this topic? Name three possible resources to research this topic.
Yes, I do have a range of resources on this topic. On possible place for potential information is bbc.com, a second potential source for information is internetnews.com, and the third possible source for information of this IT topic is microsoft.com.
Friday, November 20, 2009
ATM Questions
Describe 3 advantages to using an ATM. Evaluate those advantages. Post to your blog.
1. The main advantage of using an ATM is the fact that you can have access to the cash in your bank account whenever you need it. For example: If you are at a place (store/ticket booth/train station) that does not accept checks or credit cards but there is an ATM nearby, then you can go over to the ATM and using you card, you can get money withdrawn from your account in cash. Also, this makes traveling without cash much more accessible because if you have your card and you are at a place that happens to have an ATM, then you can get money withdrawn from your account no matter where you happen to be.
2. On some ATMs you can "transfer funds between accounts, buy stocks, check account balances and even buy stamps." All of these features can be accessed with one debit card or credit card and a PIN number. This allows you to have many features of owning your own debit card. For one, no matter where you are, you can get money/stamps/buy stocks quickly and efficiently without the hassle of going and finding a bank where you can make a transfer of your funds or take out money. It is very convenient to use an ATM because of their high speed quality and their ability to do so much with you doing so little.
3. ATM is very convenient and makes life's little emergencies far less challenging. An ATM being convenient is another one of the advantages of using an ATM because no you don't have to carry cash everywhere you go because ATMs are now popping up everywhere because banks know that people like to have the ability to do things wherever they happen to be and quickly. I think that people like to be able to take out money, or transfer money, or buy stocks, or whatever it may be, because it gives them a sense of power. I know that if I had a debit card I would be very enthusiastic because I would know that I would have the convenience of having ATMs all around me, whenever I needed them.
1. The main advantage of using an ATM is the fact that you can have access to the cash in your bank account whenever you need it. For example: If you are at a place (store/ticket booth/train station) that does not accept checks or credit cards but there is an ATM nearby, then you can go over to the ATM and using you card, you can get money withdrawn from your account in cash. Also, this makes traveling without cash much more accessible because if you have your card and you are at a place that happens to have an ATM, then you can get money withdrawn from your account no matter where you happen to be.
2. On some ATMs you can "transfer funds between accounts, buy stocks, check account balances and even buy stamps." All of these features can be accessed with one debit card or credit card and a PIN number. This allows you to have many features of owning your own debit card. For one, no matter where you are, you can get money/stamps/buy stocks quickly and efficiently without the hassle of going and finding a bank where you can make a transfer of your funds or take out money. It is very convenient to use an ATM because of their high speed quality and their ability to do so much with you doing so little.
3. ATM is very convenient and makes life's little emergencies far less challenging. An ATM being convenient is another one of the advantages of using an ATM because no you don't have to carry cash everywhere you go because ATMs are now popping up everywhere because banks know that people like to have the ability to do things wherever they happen to be and quickly. I think that people like to be able to take out money, or transfer money, or buy stocks, or whatever it may be, because it gives them a sense of power. I know that if I had a debit card I would be very enthusiastic because I would know that I would have the convenience of having ATMs all around me, whenever I needed them.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Part E
Selection and Use of Sources
Adams. 28/8/2009, "Bill Would Give Obama 'Emergency' Control of Internet", http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/08/bill-would-give-obama-emergency-control-of-internet/ (10/11/2009)
McCullagh , Declan. 28/8/2009, "Bill Would Give President 'Emergency' Control of Internet", http://www.mixx.com/stories/7248338/bill_would_give_president_emergency_control_of_internet_cnet_news (10/11/2009)
Reich, June. 31/8/2009, "Should the White House Control the Internet During an Emergency?", http://www.examiner.com/x-21668-Philadelphia-Gadgets-Examiner~y2009m8d31-Should-the-White-House-control-the-internet-during-an-emergency (10/11/2009)
The Washington Times. 30/8/2009, "EDITORIAL: White House Control of the Internet", http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/30/white-house-control-of-the-internet/ (10/11/2009)
News Item - Extract
"Translation: If your company is deemed 'critical,' a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is 'supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.'"
Adams. 28/8/2009, "Bill Would Give Obama 'Emergency' Control of Internet", http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/08/bill-would-give-obama-emergency-control-of-internet/ (10/11/2009)
McCullagh , Declan. 28/8/2009, "Bill Would Give President 'Emergency' Control of Internet", http://www.mixx.com/stories/7248338/bill_would_give_president_emergency_control_of_internet_cnet_news (10/11/2009)
Reich, June. 31/8/2009, "Should the White House Control the Internet During an Emergency?", http://www.examiner.com/x-21668-Philadelphia-Gadgets-Examiner~y2009m8d31-Should-the-White-House-control-the-internet-during-an-emergency (10/11/2009)
The Washington Times. 30/8/2009, "EDITORIAL: White House Control of the Internet", http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/30/white-house-control-of-the-internet/ (10/11/2009)
News Item - Extract
"Translation: If your company is deemed 'critical,' a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is 'supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.'"
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Part D
Solutions to Problems Arising from the Issue
There are many solutions to the problems that arose in part C. One of these solutions is to only allow the President to have the power to shut down the private sector computers instead of having another group of people do it for him. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license (Adams 2009). Allowing other people to shut down the private sector computers when the bill specifically says that it is only the President’s authority to do so is breaking the law and to have the President do it instead will be more efficient. If the President was to be properly trained then the extra people that are currently used as “cybersecurity professionals” need not be there any longer.
Also another solution to one of the problems that arose was that the language of the bill made companies timid. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue” (Adams 2009). Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government (Reich 2009). The language of the bill can have a number of relatively easy solutions. One is that a new draft of the bill is formed with language more suitable to companies ears and this is due to the fact that the language in the old one frightened them into thinking that the President would be watching over their companies 24 hours 7 days a week, when really it meant that he would periodically check in to see how and what the company was doing. Another example is to have the President address the issue himself, describing all the benefits associated with his new ability to shut down private sector computers such as national defense and national security.
There are many solutions to the problems that arose in part C. One of these solutions is to only allow the President to have the power to shut down the private sector computers instead of having another group of people do it for him. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license (Adams 2009). Allowing other people to shut down the private sector computers when the bill specifically says that it is only the President’s authority to do so is breaking the law and to have the President do it instead will be more efficient. If the President was to be properly trained then the extra people that are currently used as “cybersecurity professionals” need not be there any longer.
Also another solution to one of the problems that arose was that the language of the bill made companies timid. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue” (Adams 2009). Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government (Reich 2009). The language of the bill can have a number of relatively easy solutions. One is that a new draft of the bill is formed with language more suitable to companies ears and this is due to the fact that the language in the old one frightened them into thinking that the President would be watching over their companies 24 hours 7 days a week, when really it meant that he would periodically check in to see how and what the company was doing. Another example is to have the President address the issue himself, describing all the benefits associated with his new ability to shut down private sector computers such as national defense and national security.
Part C
The Impact of the Issue
There are many advantages when it comes to the president having the ability to shut down private sector computers in a “cybersecurity emergency”. One of these advantages is that the creator of the bill, a man named Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) he claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said (Adams 2009). Another advantage, however it can also be seen as a disadvantage, is thatIf your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national security perspective” (Adams 2009).
However there are some disadvantages too. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001 (Adams 2009). The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection. Also other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license (Reich 2009). To complete this project, it requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete (The Washington Times, 2009).
There are many advantages when it comes to the president having the ability to shut down private sector computers in a “cybersecurity emergency”. One of these advantages is that the creator of the bill, a man named Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) he claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said (Adams 2009). Another advantage, however it can also be seen as a disadvantage, is thatIf your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national security perspective” (Adams 2009).
However there are some disadvantages too. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001 (Adams 2009). The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection. Also other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license (Reich 2009). To complete this project, it requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete (The Washington Times, 2009).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)