Patriot Act Vs. Internet Privacy
Prior to 9/11, there have already been laws that govern how much information the government can learn about us and how they are able to do it. The 4th Amendment bars against “unreasonable search and seizure”. The 1st Amendment guarantees free speech. Joan E. Bertin argues that reading a book or looking up a website is not a crime, but the Patriot Act gives it grounds for criminal investigation. The Patriot Act allows FBI investigators to obtain traces of where a person has been online, what books individuals have checked out from a library, and even telephone calls.
Before the Patriot Act, it has been illegal to listen in on a phone conversation or trace e-mail. There were a few exceptions though, with employers and Child Safety laws.
It usually had to do with tracking an employee’s actions as being done through the course of the duty of work.
The Patriot Act allows the FBI to request information about an individual with out the individual knowing this what happening to him. It enables him to effectively defend himself in court?
The Patriot Act is a controversial issue that will be taken to court over and over again. It gives police more freedom to search and seize an individual and t race their minds and actions. It should be revised.
Sources
http://law.enotes/everyday-law-encyclopedia/internet-privacy
http://commondreams.org/views02/0916-06.htm

Google Adsense Report from Oct. 2006-Dec. 2006
This project began in Kriss Britt’s CSI110 class. The instructor introduced a site that would pay the webhost money for allowing them to advertise on their site. Each month, the web hoster can log into their adsense account to view payment history and other details.The following is the google adsense report from Oct. 2006-Dec. 2006.
There are 5 steps to receiving money. Step 4 states: “Once you've earned $50 in combined AdSense for content and AdSense for search earnings, we'll mail a Personal Identification Number to the payment address in your account…

OCTOBER
Download CSV file

Description Amount
AdSense for content $0.12
Subtotal $0.12
Total Monthly Earnings $0.12

NOVEMBER

Download CSV file

Description Amount
AdSense for content $0.45
Subtotal $0.45
Total Monthly Earnings $0.45

DECEMBER

Page impressions Clicks Page CTR Page eCPM [?]
Earnings
AdSense for content 129 2 1.55% $2.79 $0.36



AdSense for search - No data available -
Referrals - Get started

Total Earnings $0.36


EVERYTHING

Page impressions Clicks Page CTR Page eCPM [?]
Earnings
AdSense for content 967 6 0.62% $0.96 $0.93



AdSense for search - No data available -
Referrals - Get started

Total Earnings $0.93


CONCLUSION:
Without paying much attention to the site I racked up pennies for doing nothing. I will leave the adsense on my site and continue to rack up change.

Webpage Don’ts
Jennifer Johnson explains ten common errors web designers make when making a website. These ten things are something many people have experienced themselves. Johnson owns a graphic design company and her expertise advice is nothing more than noticing common errors and ways to avoid or fix those problems.
Starting with number ten are spelling errors and html errors. She explains how words that are spelled wrong on a page might diminish credibility for that person. Would you trust a site that has “cat” spelled wrong?
Number nine are sites that are designing for specific web browsers. Not everyone has the same kind of browser. One example she uses is when a picture is so big that words have to be read by scrolling across aside from the possibility of having to scroll up and down as well. Also, colors that are used to match a certain screen may not be viewed in the same way on a different screen.
Number eight is inconsistency with design layout. You start out on place on the page reading about one topic and a few clicks or scrolls away and you’re on a completely different topic.
Sound is number seven. She says that music is okay for personal sites but not professional sites.
Number six is the many-seen-before “Under Construction” logo. She says incomplete sites are okay but not sites that just have a homepage and nothing else.
Number five is sites that go on forever. Basically there is so much on the page that the scroll bar has become very little.
Four is frames. Windows inside of windows. She agrees they are easy to navigate with but complain about how some sites have small windows thus making the scroll bar small.
Number three is similar to the “Under Construction” sites. She explains how blinking can be a distraction.
Two is background and text colors. Many sites have pictures for backgrounds and it’s hard to read the text on top of it.
The number one web page horror is slow downloading times. When there are so many pictures on a site it takes forever for the site to download thus making people navigate away before the page is even on the screen.
These ten things are things that have been experienced by many other surfers including myself. I don’t agree with not having any music on professional sites. If it adds to the site, then fine. I agree with everything she says here. Most of these things are annoying when you come across them. These are like reminders of what not to do when building a website.

Internet Privacy
The Justice Department wants to see a record of online searches. They want to make a point that porn is easily accessible to 5 year olds. It should be the parents’ job to monitor their children’s Internet use, not a 3rd party. Google has not handed over the search records because they feel it is intrusion of customer privacy. Civil liberty groups praise Google for not handing over the records. The government wants to see a broad data search and not specifically one person so that the search results are still random. Here, raises the constitutional question of free speech versus government censorship.
Nowhere in the Constitution are the people given the right to privacy. We are not protected from the government walking in on us in the shower and setting up a video camera. This seizure of evidence isn’t pointed to one particular person. It’s the people as a whole. They want to know what we collectively are searching for. Using that information they want to make stricter laws about web-filtering.
Google, Yahoo, MSN, and AOL all have privacy policies. They all say they will comply with legal processes. Meaning if the courts see something illegal or potentially harmful, they may ask for a record of searches. That’s all they say. Google says they do the same thing any law-abiding company would do. The problem here is there is no crime happening, nor a potential threat happening so should search results be shared for research information?
We tend to want to harass the government about intrusion of privacy. Does it really bother or affect anyone for researchers to look at broad data? They see x amount of people search for pizza and x amount of people look for naked bodies. Then what? They say “see how easy it is to access this porn. Porn sites must be membership only.”
The problem is if they did that, they would be restricting the free speech of the site. Well, since they can’t do that anyways, why does it matter? I think sometimes we argue over the pettiest of things and forget what we’re arguing about.
This argument about children accessing online porn has been ongoing for years. A student may have a research paper about breast cancer and due to the government, may not be able to see a model of cancer in stage 4 inside the breast. Restricting free speech restricts the free flow of ideas which is the heart of the Internet and of communication.
It’s agreed that if a criminal act is being investigated then personal records should be obtained. If a 5 year old sees hardcore porn online is he/she going to shoot himself? Or jump off a bridge? They have easier access to late night HBO and MTV then figuring out how to search for porn on the internet. Who cares? And those who do, monitor your own children.

Evaluating Web Sites

1 http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html

not legit. Not really linked from the college

http=refers to the format used to transfer and deal with information
ngeorgia=second-level domain name and server's location
com=top-level domain name,commercial business site
history=directory name
why=file name
html=file type extension

2 http://www.bandersnatch.com/guide.htm

not legit. looks like a directory

bandersnatch=second-level domain name and the server's location
com=top-level domain name, commercial business site
guide=directory name
htm=file type extension

3 http://www.improbable.com/airchives/classical/cat/cat.html

Not Legit. not from a real research lab

improbable=second-level domain name and the server's location
com=top-level domain name, commercial business site
archives=directory name
classical=sub-directory name
cat=folder
cat=file name
html=ext

War Over Cables
The rich are getting richer and the poor are receiving less. Cable companies want Internet services to pay a price for using the lines. In one way, this would restrict who gets access to what. The rich will have access to the innovation of the digital world. This would damper competition and regulates what a person can access. On the other hand, fair is fair. People wouldn’t grow a garden in someone else’s lawn because they don’t have one of their own. If the owner of a lawn lets people grow things on his lawn he would charge a price. However, if he told the growers to only grow strawberries and bananas, this would setback their fruit variety and they would be at a halt in learning or experiencing new fruit until they can afford to have their own law. This is what will happen if consumers not only have to pay for having service, but also pay extra so that online services can pay their fees so consumers can access them.
If the corporate giants had it their way, they would block certain services from going through their cables and provide their own clone service. It’s like buying Wal-Mart brand waffles instead of Eggo Waffles, or CVS brand shampoo instead of VO5. Instead of being able to access Google or Yahoo a person may only be able to access Comcast Search Engine for example. This blocking of another service in place of only access to yours limits what a person can see and almost infringes on constitutional issues. Is a company taking away freedom of the press? If so, do they have that right? The answer, theoretically, is yes. It’s their wires, so they can say what goes through them.
When the Internet first came out, it was a private venture to begin with. The military didn’t have to let anybody use it. They were kind enough to share their invention with universities. However, if a fee was to be put into place, why didn’t the phone companies charge it then? Why did they wait nearly 30 years later to charge a fee for something that doesn’t affect phone or cable service? The answer is simple. The Internet has changed the economy. The entertainment industry is upset because artists are losing money. One person can buy a $16 CD and then download it and share it with the whole world. In theory no one would have to buy the CD, making the artist jobless and unemployed. In one way, this is bad. On the other side, people that are working on their own project might want to share sounds back and forth via the new invention the Internet. In that situation it’s a growing in communications thing. What about people that just want to download a CD to their computer and have it play while they clean the house?
Based on that example, we can see how the phone and cable companies are losing out on what they used to have. People no longer need just phone lines to communicate. People don’t need just television to watch and hear streaming video. The loss of many people went to the Internet. The same system that is running through their lines but they get nothing for it. Seeing how is affected them, they simply want their share back. What if, one day, the Internet companies decided to make their own wires? Then they wouldn’t need the phone and cable companies. So they would still lose out.
The Internet is truly a place for the free flow and exchange of ideas. It’s a way of communication to cultures on other parts of the world. Taking this away would set back the youth and poor. It’s not so much about competition as it is education. The rich would end up competing with each other for a handful of users’ money. But lost education puts a tint on society. There will be Internet illiterate youths with just that more of a struggle aside from low income. Maybe the libraries would get back into business. If there were a big library boom they would probably charge a fee just to check out a book never mind bringing it back late. This world revolves around money and that’s how it will always be. The Internet may not always be this free vehicle of information exchange, as we know it today.