I thought some of you might be interested in what is called Online identity. Basically, what I'm talking about here is that your identity online even though you might think you are anonymous, people can track you by your numerical identity of your computer and your wifi. Doing this they can know what address you are going online from and if you are a single person living there they can actually know who you are likely to be. This is how anyone can track you to your computer and to your wifi you are using if they want to. The people that have the most of this kind of information about everyone on earth and who don't sell it are Facebook and Google. But, then there are the ones who sell this information of who you are and what you do online to the highest bidder. But, which is worse in the end Facebook, Google or people who sell this information to the highest bidder worldwide? The name for this number of your computer everywhere it travels online:
This is called your:
IP address
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Wikipedia user access level, see Wikipedia:User access levels#Unregistered_users.
An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device (e.g., computer, printer) participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication.[1] An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing. Its role has been characterized as follows: "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how to get there."[2]
The designers of the Internet Protocol defined an IP address as a 32-bit number[1] and this system, known as Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4), is still in use today. However, due to the enormous growth of the Internet and the predicted depletion of available addresses, a new version of IP (IPv6), using 128 bits for the address, was developed in 1995.[3] IPv6 was standardized as RFC 2460 in 1998,[4] and its deployment has been ongoing since the mid-2000s.
IP addresses are binary numbers, but they are usually stored in text files and displayed in human-readable notations, such as 172.16.254.1 (for IPv4), and 2001:db8:0:1234:0:567:8:1 (for IPv6).
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) manages the IP address space allocations globally and delegates five regional Internet registries (RIRs) to allocate IP address blocks to local Internet registries (Internet service providers) and other entities.
Contents
IP versions
Two versions of the Internet Protocol (IP) are in use: IP Version 4 and IP Version 6. Each version defines an IP address differently. Because of its prevalence, the generic term IP address typically still refers to the addresses defined by IPv4. The gap in version sequence between IPv4 and IPv6 resulted from the assignment of number 5 to the experimental Internet Stream Protocol in 1979, which however was never referred to as IPv5.IPv4 addresses
Main article: IPv4 § Addressing
IPv4 addresses are canonically represented in dot-decimal notation, which consists of four decimal numbers, each ranging from 0 to 255, separated by dots, e.g., 172.16.254.1. Each part represents a group of 8 bits (octet) of the address. In some cases of technical writing, IPv4 addresses may be presented in various hexadecimal, octal, or binary representations.
IPv4 subnetting
In the early stages of development of the Internet Protocol,[1] network administrators interpreted an IP address in two parts: network number portion and host number portion. The highest order octet (most significant eight bits) in an address was designated as the network number and the remaining bits were called the rest field or host identifier and were used for host numbering within a network.This early method soon proved inadequate as additional networks developed that were independent of the existing networks already designated by a network number. In 1981, the Internet addressing specification was revised with the introduction of classful network architecture.[2]
Classful network design allowed for a larger number of individual network assignments and fine-grained subnetwork design. The first three bits of the most significant octet of an IP address were defined as the class of the address. Three classes (A, B, and C) were defined for universal unicast addressing. Depending on the class derived, the network identification was based on octet boundary segments of the entire address. Each class used successively additional octets in the network identifier, thus reducing the possible number of hosts in the higher order classes (B and C). The following table gives an overview of this now obsolete system.
| Class | Leading bits |
Size of network number bit field |
Size of rest bit field |
Number of networks |
Addresses per network |
Start address | End address |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0 | 8 | 24 | 128 (27) | 16,777,216 (224) | 0.0.0.0 | 127.255.255.255 |
| B | 10 | 16 | 16 | 16,384 (214) | 65,536 (216) | 128.0.0.0 | 191.255.255.255 |
| C | 110 | 24 | 8 | 2,097,152 (221) | 256 (28) | 192.0.0.0 | 223.255.255.255 |
Today, remnants of classful network concepts function only in a limited scope as the default configuration parameters of some network software and hardware components (e.g. netmask), and in the technical jargon used in network administrators' discussions.
IPv4 private addresses
Early network design, when global end-to-end connectivity was envisioned for communications with all Internet hosts, intended that IP addresses be uniquely assigned to a particular computer or device. However, it was found that this was not always necessary as private networks developed and public address space needed to be conserved.Computers not connected to the Internet, such as factory machines that communicate only with each other via TCP/IP, need not have globally unique IP addresses. Three ranges of IPv4 addresses for private networks were reserved in RFC 1918. These addresses are not routed on the Internet and thus their use need not be coordinated with an IP address registry.
Today, when needed, such private networks typically connect to the Internet through network address translation (NAT).
| Start | End | No. of addresses | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24-bit block (/8 prefix, 1 × A) | 10.0.0.0 | 10.255.255.255 | 16777216 |
| 20-bit block (/12 prefix, 16 × B) | 172.16.0.0 | 172.31.255.255 | 1048576 |
| 16-bit block (/16 prefix, 256 × C) | 192.168.0.0 | 192.168.255.255 | 65536 |
IPv4 address exhaustion
IPv4 address exhaustion is the decreasing supply of unallocated Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) addresses available at the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and the regional Internet registries (RIRs) for assignment to end users and local Internet registries, such as Internet service providers. IANA's primary address pool was exhausted on 3 February 2011, when the last 5 blocks were allocated to the 5 RIRs.[5][6] APNIC was the first RIR to exhaust its regional pool on 15 April 2011, except for a small amount of address space reserved for the transition to IPv6, intended to be allocated in a restricted process.[7]IPv6 addresses
Main article: IPv6 address
The primary intent of the new design is not to provide just a sufficient quantity of addresses, but rather to allow an efficient aggregation of subnetwork routing prefixes at routing nodes. As a result, routing table sizes are smaller, and the smallest possible individual allocation is a subnet for 264 hosts, which is the square of the size of the entire IPv4 Internet. At these levels, actual address utilization rates will be small on any IPv6 network segment. The new design also provides the opportunity to separate the addressing infrastructure of a network segment, that is the local administration of the segment's available space, from the addressing prefix used to route external traffic for a network. IPv6 has facilities that automatically change the routing prefix of entire networks, should the global connectivity or the routing policy change, without requiring internal redesign or manual renumbering.
The large number of IPv6 addresses allows large blocks to be assigned for specific purposes and, where appropriate, to be aggregated for efficient routing. With a large address space, there is no need to have complex address conservation methods as used in CIDR.
Many modern desktop and enterprise server operating systems include native support for the IPv6 protocol, but it is not yet widely deployed in other devices, such as home networking routers, voice over IP (VoIP) and multimedia equipment, and network peripherals.
IPv6 private addresses
Just as IPv4 reserves addresses for private or internal networks, blocks of addresses are set aside in IPv6 for private addresses. In IPv6, these are referred to as unique local addresses (ULA). RFC 4193 sets aside the routing prefix fc00::/7 for this block which is divided into two /8 blocks with different implied policies. The addresses include a 40-bit pseudorandom number that minimizes the risk of address collisions if sites merge or packets are misrouted.[8]Early designs used a different block for this purpose (fec0::), dubbed site-local addresses.[9] However, the definition of what constituted sites remained unclear and the poorly defined addressing policy created ambiguities for routing. This address range specification was abandoned and must not be used in new systems.[10]
Addresses starting with fe80:, called link-local addresses, are assigned to interfaces for communication on the link only. The addresses are automatically generated by the operating system for each network interface. This provides instant and automatic network connectivity for any IPv6 host and means that if several hosts connect to a common hub or switch, they have a communication path via their link-local IPv6 address. This feature is used in the lower layers of IPv6 network administration (e.g. Neighbor Discovery Protocol).
None of the private address prefixes may be routed on the public Internet.
IP subnetworks
IP networks may be divided into subnetworks in both IPv4 and IPv6. For this purpose, an IP address is logically recognized as consisting of two parts: the network prefix and the host identifier, or interface identifier (IPv6). The subnet mask or the CIDR prefix determines how the IP address is divided into network and host parts.The term subnet mask is only used within IPv4. Both IP versions however use the CIDR concept and notation. In this, the IP address is followed by a slash and the number (in decimal) of bits used for the network part, also called the routing prefix. For example, an IPv4 address and its subnet mask may be 192.0.2.1 and 255.255.255.0, respectively. The CIDR notation for the same IP address and subnet is 192.0.2.1/24, because the first 24 bits of the IP address indicate the network and subnet.
IP address assignment
Internet Protocol addresses are assigned to a host either anew at the time of booting, or permanently by fixed configuration of its hardware or software. Persistent configuration is also known as using a static IP address. In contrast, in situations when the computer's IP address is assigned newly each time, this is known as using a dynamic IP address.Methods
Static IP addresses are manually assigned to a computer by an administrator. The exact procedure varies according to platform. This contrasts with dynamic IP addresses, which are assigned either by the computer interface or host software itself, as in Zeroconf, or assigned by a server using Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). Even though IP addresses assigned using DHCP may stay the same for long periods of time, they can generally change. In some cases, a network administrator may implement dynamically assigned static IP addresses. In this case, a DHCP server is used, but it is specifically configured to always assign the same IP address to a particular computer. This allows static IP addresses to be configured centrally, without having to specifically configure each computer on the network in a manual procedure.In the absence or failure of static or stateful (DHCP) address configurations, an operating system may assign an IP address to a network interface using state-less auto-configuration methods, such as Zeroconf.
Uses of dynamic address assignment
IP addresses are most frequently assigned dynamically on LANs and broadband networks by the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). They are used because it avoids the administrative burden of assigning specific static addresses to each device on a network. It also allows many devices to share limited address space on a network if only some of them will be online at a particular time. In most current desktop operating systems, dynamic IP configuration is enabled by default so that a user does not need to manually enter any settings to connect to a network with a DHCP server. DHCP is not the only technology used to assign IP addresses dynamically. Dialup and some broadband networks use dynamic address features of the Point-to-Point Protocol.Sticky dynamic IP address
A sticky dynamic IP address is an informal term used by cable and DSL Internet access subscribers to describe a dynamically assigned IP address which seldom changes. The addresses are usually assigned with DHCP. Since the modems are usually powered on for extended periods of time, the address leases are usually set to long periods and simply renewed. If a modem is turned off and powered up again before the next expiration of the address lease, it will most likely receive the same IP address.Address autoconfiguration
RFC 3330 defines an address block, 169.254.0.0/16, for the special use in link-local addressing for IPv4 networks. In IPv6, every interface, whether using static or dynamic address assignments, also receives a local-link address automatically in the block fe80::/10.These addresses are only valid on the link, such as a local network segment or point-to-point connection, that a host is connected to. These addresses are not routable and like private addresses cannot be the source or destination of packets traversing the Internet.
When the link-local IPv4 address block was reserved, no standards existed for mechanisms of address autoconfiguration. Filling the void, Microsoft created an implementation that is called Automatic Private IP Addressing (APIPA). Due to Microsoft's market power, APIPA has been deployed on millions of machines and has, thus, become a de facto standard in the industry. Many years later, the IETF defined a formal standard for this functionality, RFC 3927, entitled Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses.
Uses of static addressing
Some infrastructure situations have to use static addressing, such as when finding the Domain Name System (DNS) host that will translate domain names to IP addresses. Static addresses are also convenient, but not absolutely necessary, to locate servers inside an enterprise. An address obtained from a DNS server comes with a time to live, or caching time, after which it should be looked up to confirm that it has not changed. Even static IP addresses do change as a result of network administration (RFC 2072).IP addressing
There are four forms of IP addressing, each with its own unique properties.- Unicast: The most common concept of an IP address is in unicast addressing, available in both IPv4 and IPv6. It normally refers to a single sender or a single receiver, and can be used for both sending and receiving. Usually, a unicast address is associated with a single device or host, but it is not a one-to-one correspondence. Some individual PCs have several distinct unicast addresses, each for its own distinct purpose. Sending the same data to multiple unicast addresses requires the sender to send all the data many times over, once for each recipient.
- Broadcast: In IPv4 it is possible to send data to all possible destinations ("all-hosts broadcast"), which permits the sender to send the data only once, and all receivers receive a copy of it. In the IPv4 protocol, the address 255.255.255.255 is used for local broadcast. In addition, a directed (limited) broadcast can be made by combining the network prefix with a host suffix composed entirely of binary 1s. For example, the destination address used for a directed broadcast to devices on the 192.0.2.0/24 network is 192.0.2.255. IPv6 does not implement broadcast addressing and replaces it with multicast to the specially-defined all-nodes multicast address.
- Multicast: A multicast address is associated with a group of interested receivers. In IPv4, addresses 224.0.0.0 through 239.255.255.255 (the former Class D addresses) are designated as multicast addresses.[11] IPv6 uses the address block with the prefix ff00::/8 for multicast applications. In either case, the sender sends a single datagram from its unicast address to the multicast group address and the intermediary routers take care of making copies and sending them to all receivers that have joined the corresponding multicast group.
- Anycast: Like broadcast and multicast, anycast is a one-to-many routing topology. However, the data stream is not transmitted to all receivers, just the one which the router decides is logically closest in the network. Anycast address is an inherent feature of only IPv6. In IPv4, anycast addressing implementations typically operate using the shortest-path metric of BGP routing and do not take into account congestion or other attributes of the path. Anycast methods are useful for global load balancing and are commonly used in distributed DNS systems.
Public addresses
A public IP address, in common parlance, is synonymous with a globally routable unicast IP address.[citation needed]Both IPv4 and IPv6 define address ranges that are reserved for private networks and link-local addressing. The term public IP address often used excludes these types of addresses.
Modifications to IP addressing
IP blocking and firewalls
Firewalls perform Internet Protocol blocking to protect networks from unauthorized access. They are common on today's Internet. They control access to networks based on the IP address of a client computer. Whether using a blacklist or a whitelist, the IP address that is blocked is the perceived IP address of the client, meaning that if the client is using a proxy server or network address translation, blocking one IP address may block many individual computers.IP address translation
Multiple client devices can appear to share IP addresses: either because they are part of a shared hosting web server environment or because an IPv4 network address translator (NAT) or proxy server acts as an intermediary agent on behalf of its customers, in which case the real originating IP addresses might be hidden from the server receiving a request. A common practice is to have a NAT hide a large number of IP addresses in a private network. Only the "outside" interface(s) of the NAT need to have Internet-routable addresses.[12]Most commonly, the NAT device maps TCP or UDP port numbers on the side of the larger, public network to individual private addresses on the masqueraded network.
In small home networks, NAT functions are usually implemented in a residential gateway device, typically one marketed as a "router". In this scenario, the computers connected to the router would have private IP addresses and the router would have a public address to communicate on the Internet. This type of router allows several computers to share one public IP address.
Diagnostic tools
Computer operating systems provide various diagnostic tools to examine their network interface and address configuration. Windows provides the command-line interface tools ipconfig and netsh and users of Unix-like systems can use ifconfig, netstat, route, lanstat, fstat, or iproute2 utilities to accomplish the task.See also
- IP address location
- Hierarchical name space
- Hostname: a human-readable alpha-numeric designation that may map to an IP address
- IP address spoofing
- IP aliasing
- IP blocking
- IP Multicast
- IPv4 subnetting reference
- IPv6 subnetting reference
- List of assigned /8 IPv4 address blocks
- MAC address
- Ping (networking utility)
- Private network
- Regional Internet Registry
- Subnet address
- Virtual IP address
- WHOIS
References
- RFC 760, DOD Standard Internet Protocol (January 1980)
- RFC 791, Internet Protocol – DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification (September 1981)
- RFC 1883, Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, S. Deering, R. Hinden (December 1995)
- RFC 2460, Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, S. Deering, R. Hinden, The Internet Society (December 1998)
- Smith, Lucie; Lipner, Ian (3 February 2011). "Free Pool of IPv4 Address Space Depleted". Number Resource Organization. Retrieved 3 February 2011.
- ICANN,nanog mailing list. "Five /8s allocated to RIRs – no unallocated IPv4 unicast /8s remain".
- Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (15 April 2011). "APNIC IPv4 Address Pool Reaches Final /8". Retrieved 15 April 2011.
- RFC 4193 section 3.2.1
- RFC 3513
- RFC 3879
- RFC 5771
- Comer, Douglas (2000). Internetworking with TCP/IP:Principles, Protocols, and Architectures – 4th ed.. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 394. ISBN 0-13-018380-6.
External links
- IP at DMOZ
- "Understanding IP Addressing: Everything You Ever Wanted To Know". Archived from the original on 21 August 2010.
end quote from:
user's IP address
So, because they know where you live, your likely identity, and can attach this to literally anything you put online, you sort of need to be careful not only of yourself but also your children.
Here is also something on:
Online identity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_identityFor related uses, see Internet identity (disambiguation). Internet identity (also called IID), or internet persona is a social identity that an Internet user establishes
Wikipedia...
Online identity management - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_identity_managementOnline identity management (OIM) also known as online image management or online personal branding or personal reputation management (PRM) is a set of ...
Wikipedia-
- The Guardian - 18 hours agoI began to find articles about online bullying and identity amongst British teens, and even more disturbing reports of people across the world ...
Online identity
This page was last modified on 30 July 2014 at 21:42.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia- For related uses, see Internet identity (disambiguation)
In some online contexts, including Internet forums, online chats, and massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), users can represent themselves visually by choosing an avatar, an icon-sized graphic image. Avatars are one way users express their online identity.[1] As other users interact with an established online identity, it acquires a reputation, which enables them to decide whether the identity is worthy of trust.[2] Some websites also use the user's IP address to track their online identities using methods such as tracking cookies.[original research?]
The concept of the self, and how this is influenced by emerging technologies, are a subject of research in fields such as education, psychology and sociology. The online disinhibition effect is a notable example, referring to a concept of unwise and uninhibited behavior on the Internet, arising as a result of anonymity and audience gratification.[3]
Contents
- 1 Online social identity
- 2 Legal and security issues
- 3 Online identities and the market
- 4 Online identity in different contexts
- 5 See also
- 6 Notes
- 7 External links
Online social identity
Identity expression and identity exposure
See also: Online identity management and Impression managementThe social web, i.e. the usage of the web to support the social process, represents a space in which people have the possibility to express and expose their identity[4] in a social context. For instance people define explicitly their identity by creating user profiles in social network services such as Facebook or LinkedIn and online dating services.[5] By using blogs and expressing opinions, they define more tacit identities.
The disclosure of a person's identity may present a certain number of issues[2] related to privacy and the undesired disclosure of personal information. However many people adopt strategies allowing them to control the level of disclosure of their personal information online.[6] Such strategies may require considerable effort to be expended.
The emergence of the concept of online identity has generated many questions in the academic world. Social networking services and online avatars have made the notion of identity far more complex. The academic world has responded to these emerging trends with the development of domains of scholarly research such as technoself studies, which focuses on all aspects of human identity in technological societies.
Reliability of online identities
The identities that people define in the social web are not necessarily reliable. For example studies have shown that people lie in online dating services.[7][8] In the case of social network services such as Facebook, companies are even proposing to sell 'friends' as a way to increase a user's visibility, calling into question even more the reliability of a person's 'social identity'.[9]
Online identity and the concept of the mask
Dorian Wiszniewski and Richard Coyne in their contribution to the book Building Virtual Communities explore online identity, with emphasis on the concept of "masking" identity.[clarification needed] They point out that whenever an individual interacts in a social sphere they portray a mask of their identity. This is no different online and in fact becomes even more pronounced due to the decisions an online contributor must make concerning his or her online profile. He or she must answer specific questions about age, gender, address, username and so forth. Furthermore, as a person publishes to the web he or she adds more and more to his or her mask in the style of writing, vocabulary and topics. Though the chapter is very philosophical in nature, it spurs the thinking that online identity is a complex business and still in the process of being understood.
Cover of International Multimedia School Magazine "trait d'union" n° 03-2003. Topic: "our identity. être jeune au début du 21° siècle".
The kind of mask one chooses reveals at least something of the subject behind the mask. One might call this the "metaphor" of the mask. The online mask does not reveal the actual identity of a person. It, however, does reveal an example of what lies behind the mask. For instance, if a person chooses to act like a rock star on line, this metaphor reveals an interest in rock music. Even if a person chooses to hide behind a totally false identity, this says something about the fear and lack of self-esteem behind the false mask.
Because of many emotional and psychological dynamics, people can be reluctant to interact online. By evoking a mask of identity a person can create a safety net. One of the great fears of online identity is having one's identity stolen or abused. This fear keeps people from sharing who they are. Some are so fearful of identity theft or abuse that they will not even reveal information already known about them in public listings. By making the mask available, people can interact with some degree of confidence without fear.
Wiszniewski and Coyne state "Education can be seen as the change process by which identity is realized, how one finds one's place. Education implicates the transformation of identity. Education, among other things, is a process of building up a sense of identity, generalized as a process of edification." Students interacting in an online community must reveal something about themselves and have others respond to this contribution. In this manner, the mask is constantly being formulated in dialogue with others and thereby students will gain a richer and deeper sense of who they are. There will be a process of edification that will help students come to understand their strengths and weaknesses.[10]
Blended identity
In some contexts (such as in the case of online dating service, rock fans, etc.) the authors may also meet off-line, and lead to the concept of blended identity.[11]
Benefits of virtual communities
A commonly discussed positive aspect of virtual communities is that people can now present themselves without fear of persecution, whether it is personality traits, behaviors that they are curious about, or the announcement of a real world identity component that has never before been announced.[citation needed]
This freedom results in new opportunities for society as a whole, especially the ability for people to explore the roles of gender and sexuality in a manner that can be harmless, yet interesting and helpful to those undertaking the change. Online identity has given people the opportunity to feel comfortable in wide-ranging roles, some of which may be underlying aspects of the user's life that the user is unable to portray in the real world.[citation needed]
A prime example of these opportunities is the establishment of many communities welcoming gay and lesbian teens who are dealing with their sexuality. These communities allow teens to share their experiences with one another and older gay and lesbian people, and may they provide a community that is both non-threatening and non-judgmental. In a review of such a community, Silberman quotes an information technology worker, Tom Reilly, as stating: "The wonderful thing about online services is that they are an intrinsically decentralized resource. Kids can challenge what adults have to say and make the news".[12] If teen organizers are successful anywhere, news of it is readily available. The Internet is arguably the most powerful tool that young people with alternative sexualities have ever had.[citation needed]
The online world provides users with a choice to determine which sex, sexuality preference and sexual characteristics they would like to embody. In each online encounter, a user essentially has the opportunity to interchange which identity they would like to portray.[citation needed] As McRae argues in Surkan (2000), "The lack of physical presence and the infinite malleability of bodies complicates sexual interaction in a singular way: because the choice of gender is an option rather than a strictly defined social construct, the entire concept of gender as a primary marker of identity becomes partially subverted."
Disembodiment and implications
This issue of gender and sexual reassignment raises the notion of disembodiment and its associated implications. "Disembodiment" is the idea that once the user is online, the need for the body is no longer required, and the user can participate separately from it. This ultimately relates to a sense of detachment from the identity defined by the physical body. In cyberspace, many aspects of sexual identity become blurred and are only defined by the user. Questions of truth will therefore be raised, particularly in reference to online dating and virtual sex.[citation needed] As McRae states, "Virtual sex allows for a certain freedom of expression, of physical presentation and of experimentation beyond one's own real-life limits".[13] At its best, it not only complicates but drastically unsettles the division between mind, body and self in a manner only possible though the construction of an online identity.
Relation to real-world social constraints
Ultimately, online identity cannot be completely free from the social constraints that are imposed in the real world. As Westfall (2000, p. 160) discusses, "the idea of truly departing from social hierarchy and restriction does not occur on the Internet (as perhaps suggested by earlier research into the possibilities presented by the Internet) with identity construction still shaped by others. Westfall raises the important, yet rarely discussed, issue of the effects of literacy and communication skills of the online user." Indeed, these skills or the lack thereof have the capacity to shape one's online perception as they shape one's perception through a physical body in the "real world."
Relation to real-world physical and sensory constraints
Online identity can offer potential social benefits to those with physical and sensory disabilities. This would largely be within the confines of a textual medium devoid of visible identity markers. Disembodiment affords the opportunity to operate outside the constraints of a socially stigmatized disabled identity. The beneficial effect for people with disabilities is in terms of providing a level playing field where they can be treated on their merits as a person, rather than as a disabled person.[14]
Concerns
Primarily, concerns regarding virtual identity revolve around the areas of misrepresentation and the contrasting effects of on and offline existence. Sexuality and sexual behavior online provide some of the most controversial debate with many concerned about the predatory nature of some users. This is particularly in reference to concerns about child pornography and the ability of pedophiles to obscure their identity.[citation needed]
Finally, the concerns regarding the connection between on and offline lives are challenging the notions of what constitutes real experience. In reference to gender, sexuality and sexual behavior, the ability to play with these ideas has resulted in a questioning of how virtual experience may affect one's offline emotions.[citation needed] As McRae states, at its best, virtual sex not only complicates but drastically unsettles the division between mind, body, and self that has become a comfortable truism in Western metaphysics. When projected into virtuality, mind, body and self all become consciously-manufactured constructs through which individuals interact with each other.[13]
Reputation management
Main article: Reputation managementGiven the malleability of online identities, some economists have expressed surprise that flourishing trading sites (such as eBay) have developed on the Internet.[citation needed] When two pseudonymous identities propose to enter into an online transaction, they are faced with the prisoner's dilemma: the deal can succeed only if the parties are willing to trust each other, but they have no rational basis for doing so. But successful Internet trading sites have developed reputation management systems, such as eBay's feedback system, which record transactions and provide the technical means by which users can rate each other's trustworthiness. However, users with malicious intent can still cause serious problems on such websites.[15]
An online reputation is the perception that one generates on the Internet based on their digital footprint. Digital footprints accumulate through all of the content shared, feedback provided and information that created online. Due to the fact that if someone has a bad online reputation, he can easily change his pseudonym, new accounts on sites such as eBay or Amazon are usually distrusted. If an individual or company wants to manage their online reputation, they will face many more difficulties. This is why a merchant on the web having a brick and mortar shop is usually more trusted.
Online identity and identity management infrastructures
A problem facing anyone who hopes to build a positive online reputation is that reputations are site-specific; for example, one's reputation on eBay cannot be transferred to Slashdot.
Multiple proposals have been made[citation needed] to build an identity management infrastructure into the Web protocols. All of them require an effective public key infrastructure so that the identity of two separate manifestations of an online identity (say, one on Wikipedia and another on Twitter) are probably one and the same.
OpenID, an open, decentralized standard for authenticating users is used for access control, allowing users to log on to different services with the same digital identity. These services must allow and implement OpenID.
Legal and security issues
Online identity and user's rights
The future of online anonymity depends on how an identity management infrastructure is developed.[citation needed] Law enforcement officials often express their opposition to online anonymity and pseudonymity, which they view as an open invitation to criminals who wish to disguise their identities.[original research?] Therefore, they call for an identity management infrastructure that would irrevocably tie online identity to a person's legal identity[citation needed]]; in most such proposals, the system would be developed in tandem with a secure national identity document. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, has stated that the Google+ social network is intended to be exactly such an identity system.[16] The controversy resulting from Google+'s policy of requiring users to sign in using legal names has been dubbed the "nymwars".[17]
Online civil rights advocates, in contrast, argue that there is no need for a privacy-invasive system because technological solutions, such as reputation management systems, are already sufficient and are expected to grow in their sophistication and utility.[citation needed]
Online predators
Main article: Online predatorAn online predator is an Internet user who exploits other users' vulnerability, often for sexual or financial purposes. It is relatively easy to create an online identity which is attractive to people that would not normally become involved with the predator, but fortunately there are a few means by which you can make sure that a person whom you haven't met is actually who they say they are. Many people will trust things such as the style in which someone writes, or the photographs someone has on their web page as a way to identify that person, but these can easily be forged. Long-term Internet relationships may sometimes be difficult to sufficiently understand knowing what someone's identity is actually like.[citation needed]
The most vulnerable age group to online predators is often considered to be young teenagers or older children.[original research?] "Over time - perhaps weeks or even months - the stranger, having obtained as much personal information as possible, grooms the child, gaining his or her trust through compliments, positive statements, and other forms of flattery to build an emotional bond."[18] The victims often do not suspect anything until it is too late, as the other party usually misleads them to believe that they are of similar age.[citation needed]
The show Dateline on NBC has, overall, conducted three investigations on online predators. They had adults, posing online as teenage juveniles, engage in sexually explicit conversations with other adults (the predators) and arrange to meet them in person. But instead of meeting a teenager, the unsuspecting adult was confronted by Chris Hansen, an NBC News correspondent, arrested, and shown on nationwide television. Dateline held investigations in five different locations apprehending a total of 129 men in all.[19]
Federal laws have been passed in the U.S. to assist the government when trying to catch online predators. Some of these include wiretapping, so online offenders can be caught in advance, before a child becomes a victim.[20] In California, where one Dateline investigation took place, it is a misdemeanor for someone to have sexually-tinged conversations with a child online. The men who came to the house were charged with a felony because their intent was obvious.[citation needed]
Online identities and the market
An online identity that has acquired an excellent reputation is valuable for two reasons: first, one or more persons invested a great deal of time and effort to build the identity's reputation; and second, other users look to the identity's reputation as they try to decide whether it is sufficiently trustworthy. It is therefore unsurprising that online identities have been put up for sale at online auction sites. However, conflicts arise over the ownership of online identities. Recently, a user of a massively multiplayer online game called Everquest, which is owned by Sony Online Entertainment, Inc., attempted to sell his Everquest identity on eBay. Sony objected, asserting that the character is Sony's intellectual property, and demanded the removal of the auction; under the terms of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), eBay could have become a party to a copyright infringement lawsuit if it failed to comply. Left unresolved is a fundamental question: Who owns an online identity created at a commercial Web site? Does an online identity belong to the person who created it, or to the company that owns the software used to create the identity?
Online identity in different contexts
Blogging
As blogs allow an individual to express his or her views in individual essays or as part of a wider discussion, it creates a public forum for expressing ideas. Bloggers often choose to use pseudonyms, whether in platforms such as WordPress or in interest-centered sites like Blogster, to protect personal information and allow them more editorial freedom to express ideas that might be unpopular with their family, employers, etc. Use of a pseudonym (and a judicious approach to revealing personal information) can allow a person to protect their "real" identities, but still build a reputation online using the assumed name.[21]
The creation of online social networks like Facebook and MySpace, allows people to maintain an online identity within an overlapping online and real world context. These are often identities created to reflect a specific aspect or best possible version of themselves. Representations include pictures, communications with other 'friends' and membership in network groups. Privacy controls, especially limited to specific networks on Facebook, are also part of social networking identity.[15]
Online learning
Main article: E-learningCommunication
Online identity in classrooms forces people to reevaluate their concepts of classroom environments.[citation needed] With the invention of online classes, classrooms have changed and no longer have the traditional face-to-face communications. These communications have been replaced by computer screen. Students are no longer defined by visual characteristics unless they make them known. There are pros and cons to each side. In a traditional classroom, students are able to visually connect with a teacher who was standing in the same room. During the class, if questions arise, clarification can be provided immediately. Students can create face-to-face connections with other students, and these connections can easily be extended beyond the classroom. For timid or socially awkward students, this ability to form and extend relationships through personal contact may hold little appeal. For these students, the appeal may reside in online courses, where computer communications allow them a greater degree of separation and anonymity.[citation needed]
With the prevalence of remote Internet communications, students do not form preconceptions of their classmates based on the classmate's appearance or speech characteristics.[citation needed] Rather, impressions are formed based only on the information presented by the classmate. Some students are more comfortable with this paradigm as it avoids the discomfort of public speaking. Students who do not feel comfortable stating their ideas in class can take time to sit down and think through exactly what they wish to say.[citation needed]
Communication via written media may lead students to take more time to think through their ideas since their words are in a more permanent setting (online) than most conversations carried on during class (Smith).
Perception of professor
Online learning situations also cause a shift in perception of the professor. Whereas anonymity may help some students achieve a greater level of comfort, professors must maintain an active identity with which students may interact. The students should feel that their professor is ready to help whenever they may need it. Although students and professors may not be able to meet in person, emails and correspondence between them should occur in a timely manner. Without this students tend to drop online classes since it seems that they are wandering through a course without anyone to guide them.[22][23][24]
See also
Notes
- Adams, Suellen (2005 conference=DiGRA: Changing Views - Worlds in Play). "Information Behavior and the Formation and Maintenance of Peer Cultures in Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games: a Case Study of City of Heroes" (PDF). Authors & Digital Games research Association (DiGRA).
- Nabeth, Thierry (26 May 2006). Understanding the Identity Concept in the Context of Digital Social Environments (PDF). "D2.2: Set of use cases and scenarios". FIDIS Deliverables (FIDIS) 2 (2): 74–91.
- Suler, John (2004). "The Online Disinhibition Effect". CyberPsychology & Behavior 7 (3): 321–326. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295. Retrieved 10 March 2013.
- Marcus, Bernd; Machilek, Franz; Schütz, Astrid (2006). "Personality in cyberspace: Personal web sites as media for personality expressions and impressions". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (6): 1014–1031. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.1014. PMID 16784349.
- Siibak, Andra (September 2007). "Casanovas of the Virtual World. How Boys Present Themselves on Dating Websites.". Young People at the Crossroads: 5th International Conference on Youth Research. Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation. pp. 83–91. ISBN 978-952-219-020-8.
- Tufekci, Zeynep (February 2008). "Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites". Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 28 (1): 20–36. doi:10.1177/0270467607311484.
- Epstein, Robert (February 2007). "The Truth about Online Dating: The hype is huge, and the findings are somewhat disturbing--but the future of online dating looks good" (PDF). Scientific American Mind.
- Hancock, Jeffrey T.; Toma, Catalina; Ellison, Nicole (2007). "The truth about lying in online dating profiles" (PDF). Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2007. ACM. pp. 449–452.
- Learmonth, Michael (2 September 2009). "Want 5,000 More Facebook Friends? That'll Be $654.30". AdvertisingAge (New York: Crain Communications).
- Wiszniewski, Dorian; Coyne, Richard (November 2009) [2002]. "Mask and Identity: The Hermeneutics of Self-Construction in the Information Age". Building Virtual Communities (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 191–214. ISBN 9780511606373.
- Baker, Andrea J. (December 2009). "Mick or Keith: blended identity of online rock fans" (pdf). Identity in the Information Society (Springer, published 2009) 2 (1): 7–21. doi:10.1007/s12394-009-0015-5.
- Holeton, Richard (1998). Composing cyberspace: identity, community, and knowledge in the electronic age. McGraw-Hill. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-07-029548-3.
- McRae, Shannon (1997). "Flesh Made Word: Sex, Text, and the Virtual Body". In Porter, David. Internet Culture. New York: Routledge. p. 75.
- Bowker, Nataline; Tuffin, Keith (May 2002). "Disability Discourses for Online Identities". Disability & Society 17 (3): 327–344. doi:10.1080/09687590220139883.
- Grohol, John M. (4 April 2006). "Anonymity and Online Community: Identity Matters". A List Apart. ISSN 1534-0295. Archived from the original on 28 September 2008.
- Rosoff, Matt (28 August 2011). "Google+ Isn't Just A Social Network, It's An 'Identity Service'". San Francisco Chronicle (Hearst Corp.).
- Jardin, Xeni (12 August 2011). "Google+ nymwars rage on, pseudonymous celebrity users are immune". Boing Boing.
- "Sexual Predators: Know the Enemy". NetSafeKids. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 2003. Retrieved 28 May 2008. "Over time—perhaps weeks or even months—the stranger, having obtained as much personal information as possible, grooms the child, gaining his or her trust through compliments, positive statements, and other forms of flattery to build an emotional bond."
- Hansen, Chris (3 February 2011). To Catch a Predator III. To Catch a Predator. NBC. Retrieved 17 July 2006.
- "Internet Laws". NetSafeKids. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 2003. Retrieved 17 July 2006.
- Dennen, Vanessa Paz (December 2009). "Constructing academic alter-egos: identity issues in a blog-based community" (pdf). Identity in the Information Society (Springer, published 2009) 2 (1): 23–38. doi:10.1007/s12394-009-0020-8.
- Chamberlin, W. Sean (December 2001). "Face-to-Face vs. Cyberspace: Finding the Middle Ground". Campus Technology. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
- Eteraz, Ali (30 January 2006). "Online Education Is Not A Fad". Dean's World. Dean Esmay. Retrieved 18 July 2006.
- Smith, Glenn Gordon; Ferguson, David; Caris, Mieke (2002). "Teaching over the Web versus in the classroom: differences in instructor experience" (PDF). International Journal of Instructional Media 29 (1): 61–67. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
External links
[hide]
Websites Personal- 23snaps
- AsianAve
- Ask.fm
- Badoo
- Bebo
- Cyworld
- Diaspora
- Draugiem.lv
- Foursquare
- Friendster
- Google+
- Hi5
- Highlight
- Hyves
- Keek
- LockerDome
- Me2day
- Mixi
- Mobli
- Myspace
- Netlog
- Orkut
- Odnoklassniki
- Nasza-klasa.pl
- Path
- Pheed
- Renren
- Show of Hands
- Sina Weibo
- Slidely
- So.cl
- Spaces
- Sportlobster
- Spring.me
- StudiVZ
- Tagged
- Tea Party Community
- Tuenti
- Tumblr
- tvtag
- VK
- Vine
- Whisper
- Wretch
- Xanga
Tools General Applications User interface Implications Related concepts Protocols end quote from:Online identity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Begin quote:
Online identity management
end quote from:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaOnline identity management (OIM) also known as online image management or online personal branding or personal reputation management (PRM) is a set of methods for generating a distinguished Web presence of a person on the Internet. That presence could be reflected in any kind of content that refers to the person, including news, participation in blogs and forums, personal web sites (Marcus, Machilek & Schütz 2006), social media presence, pictures, video, etc.
Online identity management also refers to identity exposure and identity disclosure, and has particularly developed in the management on online identity in social network services (Tufekci 2008) or online dating services (Siibak 2007).
One aspect of the online identity management process has to do with improving the quantity and quality of traffic to sites that have content related to a person. In that aspect, OIM is a part of another discipline called search engine optimization with the difference that the only keyword is the person's name, and the optimization object is not necessary a single web site; it can consider a set of completely different sites that contain positive online references. The objective in this case is to get high rankings for as many sites as possible when someone search for a person's name. If the search engine used is Google, this action is called "to google someone".[1]
Another aspect has to do with impression management, i.e. "the process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them". One of the objective is in particular to increase the online reputation of the person.
Online identity management often involves participation in social media sites like Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, Last.fm, Myspace, Quora and other online communities and community websites, and is related to blogging, blog social networks like MyBlogLog and blog search engines like Technorati.
But it can also consist in more questionable practices. Hence in the case of social network services users have the possibility to buy 'friends' so to increase their visibility.[2]
Objective
The objective of online identity management is to:
- Maximize the appearances of positive online references about a specific person, targeting not only to users that actively search for that person on any Search Engine, but also to those that eventually can reach a person's reference while browsing the web.
- Build an online identity in case the person's web presence is minimal or nonexistent.
- Solve online reputation problems. In this case, the process can also be named online reputation management.[3]
Motivation
The reason why someone would be interested in doing online identity management is closely related to the increasing number of constituencies that use the internet as a tool to find information about people. A survey by CareerBuilder.com found that 1 in 4 hiring managers used search engines to screen candidates. One in 10 also checked candidates' profiles on social networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook.[4] According to a December 2007 survey by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy research organization, roughly half of U.S. hiring officials use the Internet in vetting job applications.[5]
See also
References
- Marcus, Bernd; Machilek, Franz; Schütz, Astrid (2006). "Personality in cyberspace: Personal web sites as media for personality expressions and impressions". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (6): 1014–1031. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.1014. PMID 16784349.
- Siibak, A. (2007). "Casanova` s of the Virtual World. How Boys Present Themselves on Dating Websites". Young People at the Crossroads: 5th International Conference on Youth Research in Karelia; Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation; September 1-5, 2006. (Eds.) M. Muukkonen& K. Sotkasiira. Joensuu University: Joensuun yliopisto. pp. 83–91. ISBN 978-952-219-020-8.
- Tufekci, Zeynep (2008). "Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28 (1): 20–36. doi:10.1177/0270467607311484.
- Seth Godin (January 2, 2008). "The first thing to do this year". Seth Godin.
- Learmonth, Michael (2009). "Want 5,000 More Facebook Friends? That'll Be $654.30". AdvertisingAge, September 02, 2009.
- Susan Kinzie and Ellen Nakashima (July 2, 2007). "Calling In Pros to Refine Your Google Image". The Washington Post.
- Cristian Lupsa (November 29, 2006). "Do you need a Web publicist?". The Christian Science Monitor.
- Ellen Nakashima (March 7, 2007). "Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web". Washington Post.
External links
Online identity management - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_identity_managementOnline identity management (OIM) also known as online image management or online personal branding or personal reputation management (PRM) is a set of ...
WikipediaHere is one thing I found online regarding all this. I have no connection with this web address or business or whatever it is. However, some of the things I read here I thought might be helpful to you out there.begin quote from:https://www.allclearid.com/blog/how-do-i-protect-my-computer-and-my-identity-onlineHow Do I Protect My Computer (And My Identity) Online?
April 22, 2012
Jacqueline here, with AllClear ID. Viruses. Malware. Spyware. As exemplified by the recent < href=”https://www.allclearid.com/blog/?p=3558″> Flashback Mac virus we discussed, the internet is a dangerous place for identities and personal information. There are ways to protect yourself (antivirus software, firewalls, etc.), but if you are just a basic computer user it can be hard to know what protection you need. Here are a few identity protecting basics that every computer should have.
Antivirus Software- Antivirus software protects your computer from known computer viruses. These programs keep infected files from ever being installed on a computer and regularly scan computer files to find any hidden viruses. Antivirus protection is important, but it can’t protect your computer from all attacks. Companies that make the software must first know about the virus to protect you and with new viruses constantly being released, there are lapses in protection. This means that keeping your Antivirus Software up-to-date is essential. Some examples of antivirus software: McAfee, Norton by Symantec, AVG, Avast.
Firewall- A firewall monitors and restricts what programs can access your computer. When you connect to the internet you allow your computer to access certain information. A firewall restricts who can make changes to your computer and allows you to control what programs are installed and what access is granted. Many computers include a firewall as a part of the operating system; you just need to make sure that the firewall is turned on and fully operational. Firewalls may also be included in your antivirus protection.
Anti-Spyware/Anti-Malware- Spyware and malware are programs designed to capture personal information, disrupt your computer operations or show advertisements. These programs are a huge threat to your identity. Many antivirus programs include anti-spyware and anti-malware protection or you can install a separate program to handle this for you.
Email Spam Filter- Many phishing schemes and viruses originate in email messages. It is easy to click on a tempting email link or provide personal information in response to an email message. A spam filter can help hide these messages and limit the likelihood of compromising your computer or your identity in this manner. Caution is skill key, but a good filter makes a great backup. Most popular email providers include spam filters as a service to their users.
Recommended Software Updates- Software updates are critical to keeping your computer protected. Your operating system, internet browser and antivirus programs all need regular updating. If possible set your updates to automatic so that you don’t have to remember to update on your own.
Firewalls, antivirus software and other protections are important, but even with these in place it is still important to be careful online. Limit the information you share, be careful when downloading and never provide financial or personal information in response to an unsolicited email.One Response to “How Do I Protect My Computer (And My Identity) Online?”
It’s truly a nice and useful piece of information. I’m satisfied that you shared this useful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
end quote from:
https://www.allclearid.com/blog/how-do-i-protect-my-computer-and-my-identity-online
