Kate’s Controversies

In our lives, there are certain learning experiences that change how we see things. One of these experiences happened to me when I was fifteen years old. In high school, I was a happy-go-lucky girl who cared only about cheerleading and family. I believed that all people were innately good, until I met someone I'll call "Joe Nolife". Despite a bad reputation, I believed that this person just needed to be given a chance – so I befriended him.

I talked to Joe in the same way I talked to everyone else, through AOL instant messenger. At first, Joe seemed like a genuinely nice person. I was happy to have proven everyone else wrong! After a few weeks, however, my friends at school were not pleased with me. Apparently, Joe was telling them things that I had supposedly said about them.

Things got ugly to say the least. Not only were my friends upset, but rumors were circulating about me. Sadly, the "nice" person that I had befriended turned very cruel. Instead of talking about movies and music, Joe took every opportunity to cut me down in every aspect. He drove by my house, threatened me, and continuously spread degrading rumors.

After graduating from high school, I moved away and thought I'd said "good riddance" to Joe Nolife. But stalkers don't give up so easily. Seven years, five screen names, and 200 miles later, the issue is less of a problem – but not gone. A few months ago, I received a message from Joe Nolife via a social networking site. These sites have made it possible for people like Joe to continue stalking.

An Existing Problem Aggravated by New Technology

Because of the popularity of the Internet and other methods of electronic communication, "cyberstalking" is not uncommon. Social networks and other Web sites allow you to put out a lot of information about yourself – even down to your favorite food! By using search engines, Stalkers can find this information about a person to use it to cause mental distress.

Cyberstalkers don't necessarily know their victims; rather, they can be people who find you through the Internet. Some victims of cyberstalking may not even know they're being watched. Others are the victims of live-chat harassment.

Internet bullying is different than taking the occasional jab at someone for fun. Often, cyberstalkers will try to gather information about their target in order to spread false accusations. Other stalking methods include encouraging the victim's friends to join the conversation and attacking the person's belongings.

Grave Consequences

The ever-growing Internet is making it possible for people to get more information about whomever or whatever they want. Many websites allow you to create detailed profiles that anyone can access. Even with privacy settings, the cyberstalker still has access to basic information. While it may start out to be harmless - as in the case of Joe Nolife- things can escalate quickly.

An example of this is the 2006 death of an American teenager named Megan Meier. After Megan had a falling out with a friend, the former friend's mother created a false alias of a teenage boy who became friends with Megan. When the messages turned nasty and Megan was told that the "world would be a better place without her", she took her own life.

New forms of communication are always going to have drawbacks. The Internet age has made it easy for people to connect - sometimes too easily. I never know when or how I am going to be contacted by Joe Nolife, but it's always something that I have to think about when going to my hometown. Whenever I signup for something online, whether it's the New York Times or MySpace, the first thing I do is adjust the privacy settings accordingly.

My advice is to surf safely and encourage your families to do the same. If someone is continually giving you a hard time, report it. Many governments have begun passing legislation about cyberstalking. If you are a victim, remember that you are not in this alone.

Resources:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cyber+stalking&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&wikititle=1&q=Suicide%20of%20Megan%20Meier

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm

According to recent reports, the health of Americans is in decline. I agree. Although I've become immune to some of these reports, one particular headline made me feel shocked, frustrated, and saddened – all at the same time: "Study: Most kids' fast-food meals have too many calories". Are you surprised by this headline? I'm not. In fact, I thought this was common knowledge by now.

Even more alarming was that on the same day I read the fast-food article, I also learned that researchers are now predicting that 86% of Americans will be overweight in 2030 – and that all Americans will be overweight by the year 2048. We know that Americans are fat, but this prediction is pretty scary. The government-funded study went on to say that even if Americans never reach the 100% mark, any increase would be alarming since it's already estimated that two-thirds of the U.S. population is overweight.

There are many reasons for obesity in the United States. Some people will point to food additives like high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Others will blame lack of exercise or general laziness when it comes to physical exertion. Whatever the reasons may be, the number of people considered obese is increasing. Dr. Lan Liang of the U.S. government's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality claims that obesity numbers like this should be "genetically and physiologically impossible." She admits, however, that if the trends of the past 30 years continue, then this is the direction we're taking.

We're Fat, Now What?

As if weight-problems aren't enough, think of the impact these extra pounds will have on the American healthcare system. Researchers tracking census data have published estimates of healthcare costs that are attributed to extra weight. They estimate that the costs will double each decade, reaching $957 billion by 2030 – but, this estimate is looked at as a "huge underestimate". Importantly, these numbers account for one of every six healthcare dollars spent in the United States.

Researchers are hoping that this study will act as a "wake-up call" for Americans. In order from reaching 86% or 100% adult obesity, it's going to take more than eating less and exercising. "It really needs to be more than an individual effort… it needs to be a societal effort", says Dr. Liang. Social changes, such as such as creating more pedestrian-friendly communities, or having more calorie-considerate choices put out by the food industry, would be a good start.

I think something needs to click soon. In 2048, I will be in my sixties -and I aim not to let myself fall into these statistics. But what about those people who didn't even know that fast-food chains offer high-calorie kids meals?! By then, maybe those people will turn to the new exercise pill.

What do you think?

• Is the United States in serious trouble when it comes to obesity?
• Should the government regulate the food industry when it comes to food additives?
• How do we get people to take action when it comes to their health?

Resources:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/04/kids.meals.ap/index.html

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/2989/Why-Are-Americans-So-Fat

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26058862/

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/6491

For as long as I can remember, China has been the country with the most people and the worst pollution problems. In recent years, the Chinese government has taken steps towards reducing the amount of pollutants released. Because of the upcoming Olympics, the city of Beijing has even been issued a traffic plan in order to limit air pollution before and during the games.

The Beijing car control plan calls for vehicles with odd-numbered license plates to be driven one day, and even-numbered plates the next. The two-month arrangement is an attempt to have "blue sky days" by the time athletes and visitors come to town. If residents are caught driving on their "off day", they will be fined $14 (which, I've been told, is a harsh penalty).

To prepare for extra commuters, the Chinese government built two new subway lines and an airport rail link. Many residents believe that extra people will be a good test for the subway system, which was previously overcrowded. The extra subway lines and additional buses will help with this test – not only with regular commuters, but with the large number of people in town for the Olympics as well.

Overall Effect
Spokesman Sun Weide of the Beijing Olympic organizing committee claims that the Beijing traffic plan will reduce vehicle emissions by 63%. These emissions are a major contributor to the thick haze that often covers the city's skyline. Changes in air quality are being monitored by Beijing's environmental protection bureau, which has 27 survey stations throughout the city and 18 in Olympic venues.

"The air in the city is good, the density of pollutants has fallen … but it will take at least 20 days for results to be conclusive", says bureau deputy director Du Shaozhong. In addition to the traffic plan, chemical plants, power stations, and foundries were told to cut their emissions by 30%. Dusty construction had to be stopped completely, and heavily polluting vehicles were banned as of July 1^st.

Although progress is being made, foreign experts are not convinced that the plan could work. Their fear is that strong, unpredictable winds could blow pollution from other provinces into Beijing. Also, a lack of winds could allow local pollution to build-up, also nixing the "blue sky" effort.

What's Next?
Beijing's traffic solution is only temporary, but it is raising awareness. Jennifer Turner, director of the China Environment Forum, explains that "The government has been pushing for cleaner autos and standards, and this is helpful for putting the issue front and center."

I give a lot of props to Beijing for making an effort to cleanup for visitors. Although people are being forced to seek out new ways of traveling, hopefully many commuters will see that they don't have to drive everywhere when other options are available. Awareness is the first step in doing anything, so it will be interesting to see where the Chinese take it from here.

What do you think?

• Are two-months enough time for Beijing to see blue skies?
• Do you think the Beijing car ban plan is a good idea?
• Should it stay in effect after the Olympics are over?

Resources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25778988/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/02/chinas_air_poll.html

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/Resources/China_Cost_of_Pollution.pdf

Last week, I was in a restaurant talking with some people who had recently moved to New York's capital region from Missouri. Their reason for moving here was that their apartment had been flooded. The discussion soon turned to the fact that many people in the East might not realize that flooding occurs in the West. In reality however, the past couple of months have seen extreme flooding in the Midwestern United States that killed at least twelve people.

Are there gender differences in how people respond to flooding? Nine of the twelve people killed were men, which turns out to be a typical ratio for storms. The University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health has conducted a survey of U.S thunderstorm deaths from 1994 to 2000. Their results show that men are more than twice as likely to die in storm-related deaths as women. The study looked at 1,442 deaths, where 70% were men.

During a storm, most deaths occur during flash floods or lightening strikes. According to Time magazine, men are more likely to work outside and take more dangerous risks.

The human brain is not very good as estimating depth of water and strength of its current. The brain has an even harder time calculating the risk of normal operations, such as driving a vehicle. According to the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 6 inches (15 cm) of water is enough to reach the bottom of your car and cause stalling or damage. Additionally, a foot of water is enough to float a car, and two feet can carry away cars, trucks, and SUVs. Driving and walking are also dangerous as flash flooding could occur anytime. Eight of the twelve reported deaths occurred while the person was attempting to drive – only two of these deaths were women.

Today's weather is increasingly unpredictable. Floods are common in many places, and becoming more so in others. Survival doesn't have to be all about luck. Taking precautions in the event of a flood is crucial. Here a few tips from the Web:

- Always try to keep to higher ground.

- Don't try to drive. (See explanation above!)

- If you have to walk, try to walk where the current is not moving. Even in shallow water currents can be dangerous and cause you to fall.

- Don't fight the current. If you have to swim, do it on your back with your feet forward and up to keep from hitting debris or getting pulled down by the current.

Be careful out there!

Resources:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817603,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/national/main3949238.shtml

The technologies of today have blurred the line between public and private. For many of us, a review of our emails, Web searches, and text-message inboxes could be used to paint a virtual portrait of our lives. Unfortunately, what many forget is that these logs are not gone when we delete them, nor are we the only people who can see them – depending on who's footing the bill.

I'm very lucky in my job because I get to surf the Internet looking for controversies. I know that not everyone has this luxury. While I'm at work, using a company-provided computer and Internet connection, I know that what I'm doing could be monitored. A lot of people (myself included) have never questioned this idea – until now.

Quon v. Arch Wireless
This week, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled in favor of Jeff Quon, a police officer whose department decided to review the text messages sent from his department-supplied pager. Quon sued the police department, the city, and service provider Arch Wireless for violating his privacy. Quon's lawyer argued that although the police department had supplied the phone, Arch Wireless was an external entity – meaning that without a warrant or employee permission, the department was not entitled to read Quon's messages.

The court ruled unanimously in Quon's favor, explaining that a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is understood when dealing with an outside provider. By seizing the text-message records without a warrant or Quon's consent, the police department and Arch Wireless were said to have violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

But is American case law now clear?

"The extent to which the Fourth Amendment provides protection for the contents of electronic communications in the Internet Age is an open question", admitted Judge Kim Wardlaw. Nevertheless, the Electronic Frontier Foundation claimed that the Quon ruling helps to ensure that the Fourth Amendment "applies to your communications online just as strongly as it does to packages and letters."

But does it?

Privacy at Work
So does privacy exist at work? It depends on the situation. If you're using messaging programs on an internal server, then your employer can investigate what you're sending or searching without your consent. But if doing "business" on a handheld or PDA device through a service provider (e.g., Verizon, AT&T, Arch Wireless.), your information is - at least according to the federal appeal court in San Francisco - protected under the Fourth Amendment and the Stored Communications Act

Court cases like the Quon v. Arch Wireless are instructive because they help clarify what is public and what is private. As I mentioned earlier, when I'm at work, I understand that I'm using my employer's computer and Internet connection. So, I save whatever might be considered "inappropriate" for when I'm home.

How about you?

Resources:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/whos-snooping-on-you-at-work/index.html

http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-me-text19-2008jun19,0,1023202.story?vote40131238=1

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ELECTRONIC_PRIVACY?SITE=VASTR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080620-x-rated-sms-case-gives-employees-some-privacy-guarantees.html