Difference between revisions of "Janine Baranski"

Revision as of 17:26, 25 June 2012

Wiki Entry #1: Chinese Abacus

The Chinese abacus or the suan-pan was first documented around 1200 A.D. It, like all abaci, was created to help with calculations. An abacus is a mechanical aid for counting. An abacus is made of a wooden frame with a upper and lower deck separated by a horizontal beam. Vertical poles run from top to bottom through this beam. Beads, used for counting, are located on these poles and can be slid up or down on them. The difference between abaci lies in the number and distribution of its beads. The suan-pan is a 2/5 abacus. This means that there are two beads in the upper deck and five in the lower. The beads in the upper deck have a value of 5 units and the beads of the lower deck have a value of 1 unit. The beads on each pole are worth ten times the bead on the pole to the right. This means that the first pole is the ones position, the next to the left is the tens position, and then hundreds and so forth. If one wished to use decimal places they chose a pole other than that of the far right as the ones position and then the poles to the right would be decimal places. When using a Chinese abacus one uses the thumb to slide a bead in the lower deck up and the index finger to slide it down. The middle finger is used to move beads in the upper deck. A number was counted when the bead was slide towards the middle beam. Thus a total of 9 could be counted with one upper bead and four lower beads(Fernandes, 2012). The second bead on the upper deck was used temporarily when dividing, allowing for up to fifteen on one pole (Dalakov, 2012). The abacus was not used for actual computation. The person doing the calculation used the abacus to keep track of figures while the whole calculation was done mentally (Fernandes, 2012).

The abacus was important in the development of digital computers and the history of the digital age. It was a necessary step on the path from counting with fingers to modern computers. This path was created because people needed to be able to count higher and higher numbers, and then compute more and more complex calculations. Before devices like the abacus, fingers were used for counting. This became a problem when people began to need to count over ten. They then began to use pebbles, sticks, or lines in the dirt to count. These items were difficult to transport, easy to knock over or scatter. Eventually someone came up with the abacus which was a relatively secure, portable solution. However, even the abacus was not perfect. There are many different types of them as people tried to improve its function. The suan-pan itself was eventually modified into a 1/4 abacus by the Japanese called the soroban. This simplified the abacus and removed some of the redundancy of the suan-pan such as the need for two upper beads. The short comings of abaci and its replacements inspired better devices that eventually lead to the digital computers of today. (Dalakov, 2012)

Works Cited

Dalakov, G. (2012, January 22). History of computers and computing, calculating tools, the abacus. Retrieved from http://history-computer.com/CalculatingTools/abacus.html

Fernandes, L. (2012, August 11). Abacus. Retrieved from http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/abacus/

Wiki Entry #2: William Higinbotham and Tennis for Two

William Higinbotham was born on October 25th, 1910. He earned his physics graduate degree from Cornell University. It was there that he learned all about electronics. His first job was at the university as a technician in the physics department. After that, he worked on radars at MIT in the Radiation Lab. Then he worked on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos which later led to his concerns on nuclear safety. In 1948 Higinbotham began working at Brookhaven National Laboratory in the Instrumentation Division. There he invented the first video game, Tennis for Two. He became the head of the department in 1951 and was the head of the department until he left the Laboratory in 1968 to work for Technical Support Organization where he worked on assisting the Atomic Energy Commission with technical advice on nuclear safeguards. Higinbotham died on November 10th, 1994 at the age of 84. ("The great idea," 2007; "Research and development," 2011)

While Higinbotham's work with nuclear safeguards was very important, he is most known for something completely different: inventing the first video game! It came about while he was working at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Every fall the BNL has visitor days where people can come see exhibits set up in the gymnasium or tour the lab. In 1958 he decided to present Tennis for Two. "I knew from past visitors days that people were not much interested in static exhibits," said Higinbotham, "so for that year. I came up with an idea for a hands-on display – a video tennis game." The game was hugely popular and was displayed again in 1959; however, after its second run the game was dismantled and its parts used for other projects. The game was never patented, or played outside of the lab. ("Research and development," 2011)

Tennis for Two was just that, a tennis game between two players. The game was programmed on an analog computer attached to an oscilloscope. It took three weeks to build. The screen showed a side view of the court with the floor and net visible. Each player had their own controller with a knob to control the angle of the ball and a button to hit the ball. If the ball hit the net it rebounded at an odd angle but if it made it over the net it bounced off the floor at a normal angle. There was a reset button which was to be pushed if the ball went off screen. ("Research and development," 2011)

While Tennis for Two was never commercially sold, it is the earliest known video game and considered by most to be the first. Thus it was the forerunner in an era of entertainment never seen before. Games began to exist in a virtual world where the only limitation was the game designers imagination. Interestingly, video games diverted from graphics such as the tennis court and were mainly text based for awhile before graphics were reintroduced. Tennis for Two at the very least showed that it was possible for the emerging computer to be used for entertainment and not only by the government and large businesses even if Higinbotham did not see that potential himself when he created it.

Works Cited

Research and development of the u.s. department of energy. (2011, January 21). Retrieved from http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/videogame.html

The great idea finder. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/higinbotham.htm

Wiki Entry #3: Hypertext

"Hypertext is text displayed on a computer or other electronic device with references (hyperlinks) to other text that the reader can immediately access, usually by a mouse click or keypress sequence." ("History of hypertext," 2012)

The idea of hypertext was inspired by Vannevar Bush's article "As We May Think" written in 1945, which described a futuristic device, a Memex, that was an extensive archive of microfilms. The Memex would have been able to store and index information, books, and documents so that the user could recall the information quickly. It introduced the idea of linking content together.("History of hypertext," 2012)

The term hypertext was coined by a man named Ted Nelson in 1963. Nelson became a film maker after he attended Swarthmore College in the 1950’s. He attended graduate school first at the University of Chicago in 1959 and then at Harvard in 1960. While attending Harvard University's graduate program, Nelson took a computer programming course. After this course he wanted to create a system that would organize and index his notes. Inspired by Vannevar's notion of linking content, he later popularized the idea of hypertext in his book "Literary Machines". In this book he described a system, a "docuverse," where all data was stored in one place and never deleted. This information could be accessed, through a link, from anywhere. Later, Nelson began Project Xanadu in 1967. It would potentially make it possible for anyone to reference anything as long as the reference came from the original source, solving copyright control problems. It has not been implemented successfully to date. ("Ted Nelson discovers," 2000)

Hypertext was first successfully implemented by Douglas Engelbart (the inventor of the computer mouse). His NLS (oNLine System) eased the creation of digital libraries and storage and retrieval of electron documents via hypertext. (Griffin) Other hypertext projects followed including NoteCards at Xerox PARC, ZOB at Carnegie Melon, The Interactive Encyclopedia System (TIES) at the University of Maryland, and Intermedia at Brown University. There were a few experimental hypertext systems in the 1980's but the first hypertext system successfully used on personal computers was Guide. ("History of hypertext," 2012)

In the 1980's Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN, used hypertext to give structure to the internet, inventing the World Wide Web. This greatly improved the ease of using the internet to share information. Once the Web was invented internet browsers began to connect the Web to the internet. In 1992, Lynx began doing just that. Lynx was soon replaced by Mosaic in 1993 because it could link both graphics and texts. ("History of hypertext," 2012)

Hypertext was a very important step in the history of the digital age. Today most people do not even realize that the World Wide Web and the internet are two different things. We cannot imagine using the internet without the Web. Without hypertext the structure and use of the internet would be different from what we use today. It created a way to share and reference information in a practical way that almost anyone can use.

Works Cited

Griffin, S. (n.d.). Internet pioneers: Doug Engelbart. Retrieved from http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/englebart.html (Griffin)

History of hypertext. (2012, June 13). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hypertext ("History of hypertext," 2012)

Ted Nelson discovers hypertext. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wi_nelson.htm ("Ted Nelson discovers," 2000)

Wiki Article: The Patriot Act Changed the Security of Online Communication

The creation of the internet and the World Wide Web introduce a new way for people from anywhere in the world to communicate their ideas across to anywhere else in the world in seconds. Mail and travel were no longer the best way to send information. Unfortunately this communication can also be used by those who wish the United States harm. Our government wrote the USA PATRIOT act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism; USAPA) after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. Along with increasing airport security and assisting the families of the victims of the attack, USAPA increased the ways the government can monitor everyone, with the stated intention of attempting to “Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. “ This act was passed on October 26th, 2001. Because the act passed so quickly, many sections of the Patriot act sunset in 2005. Some sections of the USA PATRIOT act are still in effect today and those sections that sunset, set a precedent for future laws and generations to come; forever changing the security of online communication (Terrel, 2004).

The Patriot act was written to combat terrorism. An important part of that defense is intelligence gathering. The government would rather catch terrorists before an attack than punish them after one. The USAPA was not the first law to be passed with the intention of monitoring and preventing terrorists. Before the USA PATRIOT act, searches and surveillance of foreign entities were controlled by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (Terrel, 2004). FISA was introduced because of investigations, by Senate Committees, into the legality of domestic intelligence gathering. These investigations were fueled by suspicion after President Nixon’s use of federal resources to spy. FISA allowed law enforcement to conduct surveillance of foreign entities for the purpose of gathering intelligence information without court order or probable cause and therefore FISA resources could not be used in criminal investigations. If an American citizen was involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours of the surveillance initiation ("The foreign intelligence," 2011). FISA has its own secret court that governs its decisions; this makes it nearly impossible for the target of a FISA search or wiretap to challenge it. American citizens were protected from FISA searches however. Under USA PATRIOT, FISA can conduct surveillance for a criminal investigation without probable cause. These investigations could involve surveillance of American citizens (Terrel, 2004). Section 215 of USAPA changes who FISA can subpoena for business records. There used to be only certain categories of businesses that could be subpoenaed but now any person can be. It also ensures immunity to the business for good faith disclosures of the information. Section 225 provides immunity to service providers for complying with FISA wiretaps. Both of these provisions protect service providers from civil liabilities (Plesser, 03/0).

A major concern people may have about government surveillance on the internet is whether or not the government can access the content of our communication or view what website we visit and what we do on them. In general under USAPA if the government is allowed access to content it must be part of a criminal investigation. One section of the USAPA that deals with content privacy is section 202, Interception of Voice Communications and Stored Voice Mail. Prior to USAPA, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act dictated that both a search warrant and a wiretap order were required for the government to access stored email communications. Under USAPA email communications can be accessed with only a search warrant (Terrel, 2004). Section 202 helps service providers defend against hackers, denial of service attacks and other Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violations (Plesser, 03/0). Service providers can also choose to help out criminal investigations by voluntarily disclosing private information, including content (Terrel, 2004). Section 212 allows this disclosure to happen when the service provider believes that someone is in immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. USAPA, via section 222, also makes a point of saying that although service providers can help with criminal investigations they are not required to reconfigure their systems to store internet protocol traffic. Section 222 does not sunset (Plesser, 3/0).

Other types of surveillance are not intended to gain access to content, for example one way the government conducts surveillance is to obtain a pen register and trap or trace (pen/trap) order. These orders originally gave law enforcement access to phone information but now, as of section 216 of USAPA, include routing information. Before USAPA, the pen/trap was required to be used for gathering information against a subject in a criminal investigation involving international terrorism or intelligence. Now the information gathered only needs to be relevant to a criminal investigation. USAPA says that the contents of communication are not included in the information that can be gathered my pen/trap orders. The routing information gathered also includes what websites were visited and what the user did on those websites. The police officer has to use discretion and ignore the extra information. Another issue with these orders is that when the ISP gives information of all the users of that ISP, not only the suspect. Again the police officer is expected to use discretion (Terrel, 2004). USAPA also allows courts to issues pen/trap orders for any jurisdiction. Law enforcement use "Carnivore" devices to gather the information from ISPs. Under USAPA law enforcement must make reports to the court when they use these devices. Section 216 is one of the sections that has no sunset clause. Section 223 covers the government’s liability for disclosing information gained from wiretaps and stored data that are not a part of the investigation. This section prohibits civil lawsuits against the federal government as a whole but does not prevent them against individual agents who inappropriately disclose information (Plesser, 03/0). Thus USAPA attempts to set clear guidelines for law enforcement. They must use discretion with unrelated information gained from surveillance and there are consequences if this discretion is not used.

Another aspect of the government gaining access of private information over the internet has to do with how they gain the permission to access the information in the first place. For example law enforcement can subpoena servers and force them to provide evidence. USAPA changed laws regarding subpoenas. Before section 210 of USAPA, the subpoena could force the server to provide the customer’s name, address, length of service and method of payment but it did not compel them to provide credit card numbers or bank account numbers. Section 210 does compel them to provide that information (Terrel, 2004). The credit card and bank account numbers need to be used to pay for communication services however. They cannot be payment information temporarily stored on the system. This section does not sunset (Plesser, 03/0).

Another way the government can legally obtain private information is via a warrant. USAPA extended law enforcements abilities to get warrants. Normally, a search warrant can only be validated by a judge in the area where the search will occur. Under USAPA, warrants related to investigations of terrorism may be issued by any judge, anywhere. As stated earlier, in order to gain access to email, as of USAPA only a search warrant is need to obtain email. Now that search warrant can be obtained from any judge which also makes it difficult as the suspect to challenge the search since you would have to get a lawyer from the state the warrant was issued from in most cases (Terrel, 2004). Sections 219 and 220 cover some changes to warrant issuing procedure. Section 219 is the section that allows federal judges to issue these “nationwide search warrants for investigations involving domestic or international terrorism.” This section does not sunset. Section 220 allows a search warrant for stored data to be valid anywhere in the United States (Plesser, 03/0).

In addition to law enforcement to be able to get any judge to issue a search warrant, USAPA allows roving wiretaps to be used under FISA. Before USAPA, search amendments were required to specify exactly where the search would take place. For example a search warrant that covered a home did not also extend to the car. In relation to internet searches, the warrant had to specify which internet access point would be searched. In 1986, the law was amended to allow for roving wiretaps if the suspect was intentionally attempting to thwart the wiretap by changing access points frequently. Then in 1998, it changed again to allow roving wiretaps even if the evasion was unintentional. As of section 206 of USAPA, roving wiretaps became an acceptable surveillance method under FISA to gather intelligence. This means that the wiretaps are authorized secretly and there need not be any probable cause. One potential privacy issue that comes up is that the FBI may set up wiretaps on public computers because the suspect has used it. This means that innocent people’s information will be gathered. Again it is up to law enforcement to be discrete (Terrel, 2004).

Another type of warrant procedure that USAPA modified is a sneak and peak warrant. Usually law enforcement must provide notice to the target of the search before executing the warrant. There is an exception to this rule when law enforcement has reason to believe that someone will be harmed if the target is warned. As of Section 213, law enforcement only need to show that giving the target notice of the search will jeopardize the investigation and they need not give it. Section 213 does not sunset (Terrel, 2004).

The Cable Act was passed in 1984 and it originally protected cable companies from having to disclose customer records even if law enforcement provided warrants or subpoenas. They would often notify the customer that law enforcement had made the request for the information. A hearing would then be held in which the government had to give reason for gaining access to the records. Once cable companies began to provide internet service, this procedure applied to internet records as well. Section 211 removes this policy. Cable companies must disclose information in regard to internet services (Terrel, 2004). This section cleared up a lot of confusion that came about when cable companies started providing internet service. Now cable ISPs know how to react when law enforcement arrives with surveillance requests. There is no sunset provision for this section (Plesser, 03/0).

Works Cited

Plesser, R. (03/0). cyber.law.harvard.edu. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Presser article--redacted.htm

Terrel, E. (2004). Berkman center for internet & society. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Introduction to Module V.htm

The foreign intelligence surveillance act. (2011, November 17). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act