Scary!

I came across this drawing the other day and it made me worry about our privacy and identity living in a digital world. The man in the drawing seems to look very average because of his posture, dress, and the fact that he's sitting on a lazy boy smoking a cigar in his pajamas. The way the man looks doesn't scare me. It is the fact that he is successfully, I believe the audience is supposed to assume, getting personal information of a maybe unassuming person. The author makes this illusion by the talking bubble, the smug grin the man is sporting, and the "How to Phish" book casually lying against the lazy boy. The shading/ black and white aspects of the drawing make it seem as if anyone could've drawn it.


All of these aspects appeal to the audiences pathos and logos. The man depicted that appears to be average appeals to pathos because the man is "stealing" information. The easiness feel the artists makes phishing to be appeals to logos because logically this can happen. The reason I put stealing in quotation marks previously is because technically they are not stealing. Whoever is on the other end of the phone is GIVING AWAY their information. I believe the reason the author drew this is to show how relatively simple it is for people to get your information if you don't take precautions whenever you decide to give your information away.


This is why it is extremely important that we look into whoever or whatever is trying to get our information. For this reason we should educate ourselves and especially the younger generations about the importance of not giving away our information and ways in which we can protect ourselves from things like identity theft.

Approaches to Privacy and Safety

I came across two blogs posts that cover the topic of internet safety, identity, and educating children. The first blog I read titled "Nameless, Faceless Children", written by Julie Cunningham, discussed a simplistic approach to internet identity. She challenges the belief that people should not put any information about themselves online in order to protect their identity. Julie believes that the information put online cannot be worse than the information we voluntarily disclosed locally. One example that Julie gives is:


"Johnny has a recreational soccer game on Saturday morning for the 7 & 8 year old league, which was published in the newspaper.  His last name is on his jersey.  His parents and uncle cheer loudly from the sidelines “Go Johnny!”.  He holds a water bottle with his elementary school name and logo printed on it.  Oh, and by the way, his face is visible." 


She points out in this example that the child's full name, school, age, and image is voluntarily exposed in a local setting. The main point of Julie's blog is to point out that keeping a child (or anyone for that matter) nameless and faceless on the internet is not going to protect their identity. Instead, she says we ought to teach our kids about the effects of what we share on the internet and how to use the internet safely.


The second post I read had a similar view on how internet safety and identity should be approached. "A common sense approach to Internet safety", written by Elliot Schrage, focused on education being the way to keep safe on the internet. In the post, Elliot offered over ten different sites that readers could use to educate themselves on how to use the internet safely.


In comparing these two blogs, Julie's blog was more entertaining to read with her lively examples. While Elliot's blog is drier and more technical. On the other hand, if I were looking for a more helpful blog that focuses on the "how to" of internet safety then Elliot's blog would be the way to go. Both blogs have great content, but the methods that the content is given is very different. The tone of Elliot's blog is more professional and educational. While Julie's blog sounds like she's simply talking to her friends about the subject. Both posts were successful in conveying their messages, but I don't think one is better than the other. In my opinion, a combination of these two styles of writing could be used to capture a more diverse audience and offer what the audience is looking for.


What do you think?

Internet Safety

Take a look at the picture to the right. This picture comes from Bill Mullin’s Weblog where he talks about the different layers of internet safety. Mullin discusses how “predators are intent on stealing your money and personal information, installing damaging programs on your computer, or misleading you with and online scam.”

At first glance at the graphic, you already get a sense that something evil occurring. The artist created this evil sense by drawing your attention towards the male figure. The man is depicted wearing a black and white long sleeved shirt and black pants, which are generally used to symbolize a robber. The dark black mask that covers his eyes adds to this robber feel, and in my opinion, highlights the idea of identity. He has a mischievously evil facial expression that one sees in movies when a robber or con artist are successfully taking advantage of a person or stealing from them.

       The man, whom from now on I will call the robber, is coming out of a computer holding a remote control. The computer is without a label to show how any computer is subject to threats involved with using the internet. The remote control stands out from his striped dark clothes. I believe this accented feel of the control is to resemble some of the manipulation we face through online scams and unwanted Trojan horses that get downloaded into our computers if we accidentally open up a wrong file.

       Overall, I believe this picture was meant to use pathos to get us upset about all of the unwanted problems we face everyday when we use the internet. I also think that the artist might of tried using logos to get us to see the logic behind how we can be manipulated and to promote internet safety. Do you agree?