Body Scanners are headed to 11 major airports. (USA TODAY)

"Eleven major airports will begin using body scanners to screen passegers as the Transportation Security Administration launches a plan to buy 1,000 of the machines over the next two years (Frank)."

My question here is how far is the privacy line being crossed in order for national security?

These scanners, can scan through clothing and display an image of the passengers body in order to detect hidden weapons and explosives. Don't get me wrong I am all for all needs neccesssary to make sure that mine as well as others' safety is cruscial for transportation. However, I know I would feel violated/uncomfortable with this kind of scanner.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-03-05-bodyscanners05_ST_N.htm?csp=usat.me

Art Gallery Hosts a Swingers Club

An art gallery in Austria is giving visitors the chance to act out their sexual fantasies. The Secession art gallery in central Vienna is hosting a nightly swingers club. It is part of a two-month project that is aimed at provoking debate about scandal in art. During the day the visitors, who are 18 and older, can walk through the empty scarlet rooms filled with black sofas. At night when the exhibit closes the club opens to dim lights, mattresses, a spa bath and provides a sex haven for visitors, 18 and older. The club gives people the chance to overcome their inhibition and to act out sexual fantasies ranging from leather and latex to a dance floor, body painting and a sado-masochism chamber. The project is the work of Swiss artist Christopher Buchel. Buchel wanted to draw parallels between the controversial Gustav Klimt’s Beethoven Frieze paintings. Klimt’s 1902 painting was once considered obscene and pornographic because of the way women’s bodies were portrayed. The painting is on display in the basement of the Secession and visitors must pass through the swinger’s club to see it.

Austria’s far-right Freedom party is denouncing the project. Gerald Ebinger. Local Freedom Party politician says, “It abuses artistic freedom. The significance of Austria as a country of culture and of Vienna as a cultural capital is being dragged in the mud.” Vienna’s Mayor, Michael Haeupl, is saying he did not approve the club. But the outrage from politicians and newspapers are playing right into the artist’s hands.

I actually heard about this story when I was driving home from Monday’s night class. I was very much caught off guard because this is something you would never hear about in the US. I mean a swingers club at the Met, not going to happen. The exhibit is suppose to draw a parallel between a 1902 painting of a naked woman, that was deemed pornographic, to people acting out sexual acts at night in the gallery. I’m not sure where the sex in art aspect is. Maybe, for the fact that the swinger club is taking place in an art gallery.

Fair Use of Films at Universities

The University of California at Los Angeles is under fire from The Association for Information and Media Equipment, an educational-media trade group. The issue at hand here is whether the University violated copyright laws by allowing instructors to provide copyrighted videos to students via their course websites. The school argues that their use of the videos fall under fair use because the purpose is merely for education and even falls under the guidelines of the Teach Act. The university believes it is protected by those exceptions and the Teach Act, which allows limited use of copyrighted materials for online education. On the other hand, opponents argue, "fair use" applies to face-to-face teaching.
(http://chronicle.com/blogPost/UCLA-Will-Resume-Streaming/21594/)
This debate suggests that it may be time to alter copyright laws, especially with respect to technology. Advances in technology allow for students and instructors to create an environment where learning can occur on several different platforms. During my Undergraduate studies at Saint Louis University, we were allowed in film courses and other classes to view full films via Blackboard. These videos were a supplement to class material, and at times were the focus of class discussions and learning material. At times it was very difficult to manage and change your schedule so that you could visit the media lab to watch a film; this method is much more convenient and cost-friendly.

I believe that this should be protected under copyright laws due to the simple fact that the films are being utilized for education. In addition, only the students who are enrolled in the specific course and can log into the system have access to the videos. It's not as if anyone can visit the school or course website and watch the videos, access is password and user-protected. I think the media group opposing them just needs something to whine about and are looking for another way to make money-get over it! We are in a new age, a digital age, where almost everything can be utilized in a digital form. It's convenient, less costly, and provides innovative ways to provide education to many people.

Botnets and Social Networking

Next time you are on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace or any other social networking site, beware of the botnets! Cybercriminals are using the information posted on these websites to create links and e-mails that appease to the victim's interests. Apparently, these criminals are using users' statuses, posts and other personal information to lure the victims into these malicious attacks.

For example, in fall 2009 hackers sent a Facebook message to a few co-workers including a link to photos of a picnic that some of the employees had attended (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2010-03-04-1Anetsecurity04_CV_N.htm). One of the employees mentioned the picnic on his profile page, which was where the hackers found their bait. Another employee received an e-mail who they thought was from their co-worker with a link to the photos from the picnic, but the message was from the criminals. They were exposed to everything but photos-infection of their computer system, where the hackers were able to take control of her Facebook account and company laptop.

With this control, they were able to search the company's network for two weeks. Now I understand why my job does prefer us to access Facebook on their computers. Social networking is providing bait for the hackers of a new generation. This is why individuals should not post sensitive, personal, revealing information about themselves-you never know who and how someone may be able to use this data. So for now on, be careful what you post and be mindful of how someone could use that information to victimize you!

Security and Mobile Shopping

According to Adage.com, phone applications, specifically those for the iPhone, are revolutionizing the way people are shopping (http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=142318). Consumers can use their phones to compare prices, research products, read product reviews, find coupons and much more, all from their cell phones!

Although these applications are helpful, fun, and new, there should be concerns: are they secure? What types of protection is in place on cell phones to prevent theft of sensitive information? Are cell phones even capable of protecting its users from such threats?

These are a few questions I had regarding the applications, as I am sure that some day someone with nothing to do, and only change in their pockets will find way to steal others' information and use it for their gain. Only time will tell.

Wrong on Both Ends

Students from the University of California-Berkeley are outraged about the decision for a 32% hike in tuition. Many students protested this increase, as they were concerned about the future of their education, careers and lives in general. Several protests included the occupation of buildings on several UC campuses and an alleged attack on the UC–Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau’s home (http://www.campusprogress.org/fieldreport/5135/above-the-law). Hundreds of students were arrested for the protests, but the most peculiar part of the incident is the University's reaction and choice of reconciling the situation.

There is clear conflict between the school's "Code of Student Conduct" and state, along with federal law, specifically the right to protest. A few of the students were suspended, while others received notices to leave their campus housing. The students were not provided due process by the school, which is a federal legal requirement/standard: Does this apply to University and educational proceedings? The school has altered its policy a few times since these issues began this January, which infers that the previous policy was not adequate to assist them presently. Many questions are present regarding this case: To what extent is the University legally able to penalize the students? Did the students' speech fall within the protection of the U.S. Constitution, or did they take things too far?

The students involved probably should not have taken the protest to the Chancellor's home; his space is private property and separate from the dealings of the University. There are several issues to be debated and decided upon due to this incident, and I am sure that the results will encourage major changes in University policy regarding its relevancy to state and federal law.

Coffee + Guns = Starbucks?

There is an ensuing debate in San Francisco regarding Starbucks allowing their customers to freely carry and wear unloaded guns (more). Starbucks announced today that they would allow their customers to do so, since this is their right; a freedom they have under State law, because open carry is legal. Area gun-control advocates have publicly protested against this decision, citing incidents where Starbucks employees have been killed due to the right of the customer. Those for gun control, most notably the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have made quite an impact on the debate. The group says on their website to Starbucks, "Tell Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots," (website).

What is most interesting to me about this statement is the logo they have created to support their campaign. I think that this logo is too close to the original, it reminds you too much of the actual Starbucks logo. Why they do not have a problem with it, I don't know, but of course, it is political speech, so it's not a big deal, I guess (?). I believe that they could have come up with something else to support their cause, and I feel as if they are wrongfully targeting Starbucks. Yes, they are a worldwide brand, but associating them with these issues are wrong when they are just allowing people to exercise their rights; rights that citizens have fought for.

I totally agree with Starbucks when they say that both groups: gun-control and gun-right/freedom are exploiting Starbucks to bring popularity to their views and efforts. I wonder if Starbucks will respond to some of the comments made by advocates, which in a way could be considered slanderous. If I were Starbucks, I probably would.