Credit: Thomas Hawk (via Flickr)

Parents can no longer trust child-oriented virtual worlds as being a safe haven for their children online.  Federal officials have recently declared that parents have to play a more active role in their kids’ virtual lives.  They said that a majority of these worlds failed to adequately protect children from explicit sexual and violent content.

In fact, this study has been congressionally mandated with the Congress tasking the FTC with looking into this matter.

The resulting report released by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) analyzing the policies and content of 27 virtual worlds revealed a lot of interesting information. The commission found 70% of the virtual worlds allowing access to objectionable material.

The researchers investigating on behalf of the agency registered in these virtual worlds as children, teens and adults.  They then recorded the explicitness of the content they found in those places by identifying it as low, moderate or heavy.

The FTC found at least one instance of either violence or sexually explicit content in 19 of the 27 virtual worlds they investigated.  Five of the virtual worlds were graded as displaying heavy amount of explicit content, four offered moderate amount, and ten showed lesser amount of explicit content.

The Commission also revealed that while some of the virtual worlds used language filters to ensure that objectionable language does not appear in text communications, this did not prove to be very successful.

Apart from presenting these reports, the FTC also offered several suggestions for virtual world operators towards reducing the risk of exposure to explicit content for youth.  The suggestions included age-screening mechanisms to be fitted in place to ensure minors are only allowed to interact with their peers and view only content that is appropriate for their age.  They also suggested re-examining the strength of language filters.

The agency also noted that there are certain online worlds that have taken the precaution of having advanced age-screen mechanisms in place, such as not allowing a user to register again from the same computer giving an older age, after they were initially rejected for being too young. They also had adult-only sections restricting the entry for young users to those areas.

However, the FTC feels that a large section of the virtual worlds have insufficient rules and systems in place.  They found that in such places, their researchers were able to register again using the same computer, immediately after being rejected for not fulfilling the minimum age requirement.

Another suggestion of the FTC was on employing moderators that are specially trained in dealing with violations of conduct and who have the ability to guide other viewers to report content as well as comment on users who violate the terms of behavior in the virtual world.  They also said that segmenting members by age in order to reduce the risk of children interacting with older people may prove to be helpful.

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said, “It is far too easy for children and young teens to access explicit content in some of these virtual worlds.  The time is ripe for these companies to grow up and implement better practices to protect kids.”

After their research was conducted and data retrieved, the Commission sent letters of inquiry to six virtual-world operators asking for information on the age-screening techniques they employed.

Credit: diybookgirl (via Flickr)

Although, the responsibility of ensuring content is strictly available based only on the age lies with the virtual world operators, the FTC also stressed on the importance of parents and children alike becoming better educated about the risks and benefits of participation of young children and teens in the online worlds with explicit content.

The general opinion of internet users seems to steer towards having better moderation of chat channels that can filter offensive material. In some virtual worlds, in spite of there being a system in place to report users, all requests for moderation fall on deaf ears. The general consensus is that perhaps programs that allow user-driven moderation could help alleviate this problem.

While the FTC works on cleaning up the virtual worlds and making them safe for our children, it becomes the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s online activities.

Credit: BigStockPhoto.com

Why do you blog? Is it because you have something to say? Because you want an audience? Because you want to make money? There’s nothing wrong with any of those blogging motivations, and you can even have all three! One of the best, and simplest, things you can do to increase your audience, build more trust in your blogging community, and make more money blogging is to be transparent.

Let’s take a look at what transparent blogging is, how you can do it, and how transparency can help you grow your blog.

What is Transparency?

Basically transparency means full visibility — you’re not trying to hide anything. In other words, if your company CEO were to write for the company blog under their own name and share their honest thoughts that would be relatively transparent. On the other hand, if that CEO were to then post a comment on that blog post under a different name to make it look like positive customer feedback, that would not be transparent — it would be deceitful. Transparency is about being as open and honest as possible with your clients, customers, or audience, and doing so whether or not it always paints you in the most positive light.

Benefits of Being a Transparent Blogger

Why would any blogger want to be transparent? After all, doesn’t that give the competition insight into how you operate (potentially giving them an edge)? Do you really want readers or customers to know about the inner workings of your business just because you have a blog? I promise, it’s really not that bad. It’s just about being honest. No one expects you to give away trade secrets or publish your business and marketing plans as roadmaps for anyone else.

Credit: BigStockPhoto.com

Honesty is absolutely worth it. As a blogger, trust can play a great role in your success — both with traffic and with income generation. Let’s say you monetize your blog with affiliate links. You review products and include the affiliate link so you earn a commission if your readers buy it. You could simply post glowing reviews about everything, or you could give honest and balanced reviews (still emphasizing that you recommend a product overall, but noting any room for improvement so readers won’t be surprised by flaws if they buy on your recommendation). The second garners more trust, and when readers know they can trust your buying recommendations, you’ll increase the chance that they’ll buy other products you refer them to in the future.

Readers don’t like to wonder if your words (and opinions) are your own or if you’re just another mouthpiece being paid to promote a business. When you make those readers your priority instead of earning income from sponsors and affiliate programs, you might very well earn more than when you think solely about the money. People find honesty refreshing. It’s not as common as you’d like to think in the blogosphere (with some bloggers not disclosing payment or relationships with advertisers and others allowing their sponsors to influence the editorial side of their blog). Give them that honesty and they’ll not only trust your sales referrals but they’ll be more likely to link to your posts and tell others about you, increasing your traffic and growing your community.

How You Can be a More Transparent Blogger

Being a transparent blogger isn’t difficult. Here are some of the basic things to keep in mind:

• Disclose relationships with companies you’re blogging about (if I were to write about DirJournal.com on one of my personal blogs for example, I should include a disclaimer saying that I’m a paid blogger with the company — anything else would be misleading to readers). This also includes never blogging or commenting anonymously in order to further your cause. Don’t post glowing reviews of your (or your employer’s) products without noting that you’re from the company. Don’t pretend to be someone you aren’t. Don’t be anonymous — if you aren’t willing to take public credit for your words, then they’re not worth saying in the first place. Also, don’t assume that disclosing your relationship with a client, employer, or sponsor once is enough. Every time that company is mentioned on your blog, make the relationship known. People come to inner pages via search engines all the time. No matter where they first see the company mentioned, they should know immediately how you’re tied to that company.
• Disclose the fact that a post contains paid links or affiliate links. You might just write a quick sentence or two up front, or you could include a banner stating that the post contains affiliate links (that’s my personal preference, and I like to link that affiliate link disclaimer banner to a larger affiliate link policy page so my readers can find out exactly how affiliate links are chosen and how I might use them on the blog).
• 
  
  

  Credit: BigStockPhoto.com

  Disclose post sponsorship. If a company pays you to write a post about them, readers have a right to know that payment may have influenced the opinions laid out in that post. Even if your reviews themselves are completely unbiased (I believe wholeheartedly in never taking sponsorships that require solely positive feedback), be up front with readers and let them make an informed decision of whether or not to trust your review for themselves.

• Disclose freebies. Even if a company isn’t paying you cash to review their products or services, you should disclose any kind of compensation, including freebies. If you get a free hotel stay, mention it. If someone sends you a free review copy of a new book, note that it was sent to you. On the flip side, when you do pay for something yourself before reviewing it, I suggest mentioning that too. While it’s not necessary, I find that when you show that you considered a product worth spending your hard-earned money on, readers are even more receptive to your reviews.

Are you noticing the recurring theme here? Disclosure! If there’s anything at all in a post or comment that could be construed as a conflict of interest, disclose it.

Another key element of transparency is admitting your mistakes. If you try to cover something up, you’re bound to be found out. You’ll also be in much hotter water with readers if that happens than if you admit you made an error and you work to correct it. If you lash out, don’t go back and censor things like it didn’t happen. Apologize sincerely. If you forget to disclose a relationship before reviewing a product, go back and do that (if you want to be even higher on the ethical spectrum, you might also offer to refund readers who bought on your potentially biased recommendation but were unhappy with the product — although most bloggers wouldn’t do this). In short, own up.

U.S. Bloggers: The FTC Weighs in on Transparency in Blogging

Transparency is always a good idea in blogging, but if you’re a U.S. blogger it’s soon going to be a legal requirement rather than a simple question of business ethics. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued guidelines that affect bloggers starting December 1, 2009. Basically you’ll be required to do some of the things mentioned above — disclose relationships, payments, and freebies for example.

While there are some debatable issues in the new regulations (such as whether or not they’ll eventually actually start cracking down on bloggers with fines instead of focusing more on the advertisers, and the issue of print media being left to their own devices while bloggers become more regulated), it’s common sense isn’t it? Be honest. Don’t mislead people. Don’t post biased information without letting readers know exactly what they’re looking at up front. Did we really need a federal agency to tell us something our mommies and daddies should have taught us years ago? Because of a few bad apples, apparently so.

Whether or not you’re covered by the FTC guidelines, consider making changes now to become a more transparent blogger. You don’t have to give away all of your secrets to success in order to reap the benefits of increased credibility. Let transparent blogging lead you not only to more readers, but more readers who truly value what you have to say.

How far should a company go to protect its brand? What aspects of the private, off-duty time of its employees can a corporation control in order to guard itself against those who would attempt exploit its trademark and sabotage its image? According to Jennifer Van Grove of Mashable (08/04/2009), the sports world seems to be on the front lines of brand protection from attacks via social media. Earlier this month, ESPN told its employees and players they are not allowed to post to Twitter about any topic other than ESPN when referring to sports. The fallout of the pronouncement came to a noisy, tense resolution after ESPN found it necessary to take to the Twitter boards to defend itself. In response to Van Grove’s article, ESPN announced on Twitter it had revamped its original regulations regarding employees’ use of Twitter and other social media. ESPN went on to explain its reasons for the latter declaration by asserting the company was engaging in brand protection. Other sports entities such as the Southeastern Conference and the National Football League have taken similar measures to protect their brands and trademarks, as well as the broadcasting rights of the television stations that transmit their sporting events. The SEC banned ticket-holders from using social media applications to post public updates of sporting events from within the event itself. Catalyzed by loud grumbling from fans, the SEC has come to a decision to permit brief updates via such social media applications as Facebook and Twitter. Live video will not be permitted.

ESPN is showing considerable foresight in recognizing future threats to its brand and image from technological advancements. The company knows it is only a matter of time before the rules are more obviously justified. While the current regulations primarily involve the posting of sports-related media on employees’ websites or social pages, it is clear ESPN is also concerned with the off-time behavior of its employees and players, enough to feel it necessary to warn them the big eye was watching.

As our world gets smaller and more virtual, it is going to be that much more difficult for people to hide their personal delectations. People also have to consider while they may not be aware they are being filmed or photographed, such media could eventually end up on the web. While ESPN may not necessarily be asking its employees and contractors to try to control what others say about the company, they are adamant as to the culpability of employees’ and players in regard to their own pages and posts. Popular consent gives companies every right to expect proper deportment from their employees, both in and out of the office. Most companies today have new employees sign contracts that protect the company in any number of ways from public embarrassment, corporate sabotage and brand infringement.

Trina L. Grant is a social media blogger and Twitter addict. For more samples of her writing, you can check out her blog, Destination Freelance. For more on social media and Twitter, go to her website.

Image courtesy sxc/CraigPJ

In a historic era when most car manufacturers are having to re-invent everything short of the wheel, BMW is quietly but stealthily creeping ahead as the luxury car of choice for the environmentally-conscious individual who can afford a BMW. Every car manufacturer in the country is pulling their hair out, just trying to stay in operation. Meanwhile, BMW is modifying its line of luxury sedans to accommodate the demands of a green-thinking consumer public. While some car companies are just trying to keep their businesses from being swallowed up by the federal government, BMW is modestly winning the battle to be the greenest car company around, and possibly setting the stage for a luxury car coup.

According to an August 26th article from Bavarian Motorsports, BMW has gone far above and beyond the required in its drive to reach the admirable goal of being one of the top earth-friendly car manufacturers. The company has taken noteworthy steps to reduce its non-recyclable output as well as its consumption of natural resources. By diverting a methane source near its South Carolina factory, the company is able to harness more than half the energy required to operate the quarter billion square foot plant. The feat will save the company a cool couple of millions of dollars a year and reduce toxic CO₂ emissions to equate planting nearly 25,000 acres of trees a year. The corporation is making three quarters of a billion dollars in energy- and cost-efficient  improvements to the plant. Proactive steps are being taken to reduce water consumption and hazardous chemical waste production. BMW has the first sun-powered trash compactor in use in an automobile production factory in the United States.

According to its South Carolina plant’s corporate website, the company’s commitment to becoming increasingly self-sustaining has led to installation of machinery at the South Carolina plant that has affected a 16% increase in energy efficiency. The nod from the EPA only adds another feather in BMW’s cap as recognition of its efforts in the clean-car initiative. The website of the South Carolina plant proudly asserts it recycles nearly all the scrap materials left over after the car manufacturing process. The company has ceased using Styrofoam and has instead begun to use a more earth-friendly padding material.

BMW supports environmental initiatives within the community as well. In South Carolina BMW provides corporate funding to support nature conservancies, cultural reinforcement programs, and wildlife federations. It employs corporate initiatives to promote funding for conservation education, as well as supporting education through grants and scholarships. The company annually awards individuals who show outstanding patronage for the state of South Carolina through proactive work preserving the indigenous culture, history and nature of the state. There is an on-site butterfly farm and numerous birdhouses across the campus. BMW has accomplished the safe preservation of the natural wetlands bordering the land around the South Carolina plant.

You can find more about automobiles and clean cars at professional freelance blogger Trina L. Grant’s website. Check out her blog, Destination Freelance, for more samples of her writing.

Image courtesy sxc/pentond

The cars are assembled, now they just need places to recharge. Someone has to pay for charging stations to be constructed. Thus there is a familiar paradox that often plagues the world of business and impedes progress. Someone has to put up the capital for the charging stations to be built, so consumers will feel secure purchasing an electric car knowing there will be readily accessible places where they can plug their cars in. However, no one wants to invest if they are not assured of a solvent return. Now is when we need some Bruce Wayne of the financial world to swoop in and save the day. Well, T. Boone Pickens and Warren Buffet don’t exactly bring to mind Bruce Wayne, but they could probably afford to invest in something like electric car charging stations. Would it be worth it to them, though? Would there be cogent remuneration to justify their investments, or would some crazy event like, say, an oil strike in South America have Americans looking to the jungle to see if any relief from interminably high gas prices was forthcoming?

The numerical figures from sales of electric cars will reveal a predilection of the importance of the environment in the minds of the average United States consumer compared to the importance of their pocket book. There will undoubtedly be a time when all cars are electric or operated by some other means than the burning of fossil fuels. It seems people are too nervous to spend the money for a environmentally-friendly car in the current economic climate. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal by Rebecca Smith (08/06/2009), the federal government has set aside stimulus money in the hopes of expanding and reinforcing the market for clean cars. A budget of $24 million has been set aside by the Department of Energy to promote manufacture of electric cars. That particular earmark does not, however, cover charging stations. It only covers batteries for electric cars.

GM is tooting its own horns about the mileage of its rolling acquiescence to the green movement. The Chevrolet Volt, which the company asserts will get well over 200 miles to the gallon, does use gas, but only as a secondary source of power. Its primary source of power is the battery. Not to be outdone in the race to be the greenest, Nissan throws its hat in with its all-electric showpiece purported to get more than 350 miles to the gallon.  Ford is guarding its hand for now, preferring to hold back any big claims until closer to the cars’ actual release dates, proposed sometime for 2011.

Ford is making efforts to make owning and maintaining a hybrid vehicle as easy as possible. According to Suzanne Ash of Cartechblog.com (08/18/2009), Ford’s new hybrid, the Escape, will be implemented with high tech components to communicate through the country’s electrical infrastructure to the vehicle, and thus the driver. The information would instruct the driver when to stop to let the car re-energize, the duration of recharging and the proper utility rate. Ironically, the cars are being delivered to electric companies, not car dealerships.

For information about technology and electric cars, you can visit Trina L. Grant’s website. For more samples of her writing, visit her blog, Destination Freelance.

Image courtesy sxc/plejeor

There is a certain irony in watching two American passions, one old and one new, collide and find it difficult to co-exist. Such appears to be the case for social media and the Southeastern Conference. Considered the proud daddy of a handful of powerhouse football teams, the regional United States collegiate sports association has made its mark in university-level athletics, bringing names such as Paul “Bear” Bryant, Bobby and Terry Bowden, and “Shug” Jordan to mind. As devoted as Buckeye fans may think themselves to be, they have nothing on the beef-eating farm boys of Alabama who know the life histories of Jesus and Bear Bryant before they can walk. These die-hard fans wean their babies off the bottle with Georgia Bulldog sippy cups, while some proudly carry their Florida State handbags and wallets. They are serious about their sports. As such, they like to talk about the  SEC a lot. Lifelong season-ticket holders who proudly shout the latest results of the game from the tailgate party to the family member at home with a broken leg have embraced communications technology as a method of being able to exchange information about their team at a moment’s notice from their bright orange telephones playing a blaring version of Tennessee’s fight song. As Daniel Howell and Sean Garmer reported in College News on August 15th, ticket-holding fans of the Southeastern Conference can still have their phones at games and sports events, but they better not try to use the video camera on them.

The week of August 15, 2009, the Southeastern Conference, one of the most revered, yet feared, college sports associations in the United States, announced it would take as much legal action as permitted against ticket-holding fans who sent updates of sporting events to social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, from the sporting event. In other words, no tweeting the score, no posting the latest player injury to Facebook.  The decision was met with much protest from fans who had become accustomed to using the latest gadgetry to inundate their lives with team news and trappings in every possible way. They were not going to relinquish their new toys so easily. According to an article posted August 18, 2009 by Adam Ostrow of Mashable.com, the SEC has come to a temporary, tentative resolution amidst all the uproar about its incendiary decision. After much discord, the edict was amended to reflect the association’s intent for there to be no live video made by fans at any sporting events. The fans are allowed to send updates to social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook using “brief descriptions” of the event. They are not, however, permitted to make any “real-time, live video” of the event. Fans may take photographs at the events, but they are not allowed to sell the photographs.

The Southeastern Conference is trying to protect its brand, that is understandable. It is working to prevent its product from being sold on the black market. Other companies are taking more extreme measures to protect their brand and market appeal from unforeseen dangers in the social media realm. ESPN, for instance, has informed its employees they are only permitted to post sports news relating to the channel on Twitter. They have been instructed to monitor what they and others post to their Facebook pages that might be considered inappropriate or cast ESPN in a poor light. They are reminded they are representatives of the company, and their actions might reflect on the ESPN image.

As social media grows and expands in a never-ending display of wonderful new gadgetry and toys, it is going to be all the more important for businesses and individuals to protect their private interests. There is of course, the other side of the story. Where do individuals’ rights to free speech overlap businesses’ rights to protect their image and their trade secrets?

Trina L. Grant is a social media blogger and professional freelance writer. For more samples of her writing, visit her blog, Destination Freelance. To find out more about social media and Twitter check out Trina’s website.

Image courtesy sxc/dimitri

Enter the political arena of the late 1990s when legislators began a major overhaul of the Federal Communications Commission. In 1996 began the first real attempt at major modifications of the original bill. The passing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 began to open the doors for more free-market opportunities in communications. In 2008, Senator Edward Markly, a Democrat from Massachusetts, introduced more proposed legislation to the original bill of 1934. This proposed amendment contained provisions in it meant to appease opponents of the original plan from 1996. It would greatly expand the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission to cover data transmission by a vast array of media venues. The bill, called HR 5353: The Internet Freedom Protection Act of 2008, was introduced on February 12, 2008. The bill essentially prevented misuse of power by major internet service providers. Proponents asserted the bill would promote fair-market values in the exchange of data transmitted over the internet. The relatively short proposal was succinct and direct in its language, despite the shady areas of opinion of its validity as a plausible, cause-worthy statute. It sought to strengthen the Federal Communications Commission’s control over internet data in addition to telephones, television and radio. Opponents cited risk of privacy invasion and the breakdown of capitalism, charging the bill would block the fair market system by putting a strangle-hold on the rights of telecommunications companies to offer exclusive deals to certain advertisers. By June of 2008, the Recording Industry Association of America had voiced its own concerns about piracy in a written letter to Congress that resulted in Senate Hearings on the matter. Despite their concerns, the RIAA was still in full support of the bill. Unfortunately for Senator Markly, the bill failed.

Not to be dissuaded from his cause, Markly began another round of bargaining when he introduced yet another bill proposal on August 1, 2009. The newest bill, and the source of all the current controversy, is HR 3458, otherwise known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. The amendment proposes legislative restrictions on internet companies to prevent them from slowing competitors ads on their site, or blocking them all together. Supporters of the amendment assert the protection of capitalism and free market enterprise. This time, Markly has made a few concessions to the amendment, in order to appease opponents of the bill and hopefully change their minds and garner their support. Markly hopes to convince his naysayers passing the bill is a matter of protecting our right to freedom of speech. Opponents say constitutional law covering freedom of speech only covers rights being threatened by the government, not disagreements in business practices. The main point proponents of the bill wish to emphasize is the role of the internet as a part of our integral infrastructure, as important to our continuity as a society as electricity and roads.

The question becomes, then, what is the the extent of the importance of the internet in our lives? How essential to the survival of our society has the internet become? Has the internet, to so much a degree unstoppable (YouTube anyone?), become such a gargantuan entity in and of itself that it no longer falls under the same jurisdiction as other media venues? Will the feds have to move over and let the cyber-geeks drive once the controls are too complicated for politicians to operate?

Trina L. Grant is a professional freelance writer and editor. You can find more samples of her writing as well as more information on legislation and communications on her blog, Destination Freelance and her website.

Image courtesy sxc/fumes

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, is without a doubt accepted as one of the most amazing sources of information on the internet. This is where people turn to for any information they need. The English language version was brought out in 2001 and has experienced great popularity since then.

But over the years, Wikipedia has had its share of controversies. There have been academics who deemed suspect some entries, as it is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone. Many feel that just as too many cooks spoil the broth, too many contributors/editors can also confuse the information.

Wikipedia has fought many battles and the latest one is from Britain’s famous art gallery’s website, “National Portrait Gallery (NPG).” They have threatened to take legal action as they claim that images from their website have been uploaded to Wikipedia. In response to this, the online encyclopedia has accused the National Portrait Gallery of betraying its public service mission.

An image of the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I looks on amusingly from the art gallery and now also the Wikipedia pages, as the two adversaries battle for rights hundreds of years after she was painted. The fact is that 3,300 high-resolution images from the gallery have been uploaded to Wikipedia in April, by a Ph.D. student and volunteer from Seattle, Derrick Coetzee, and the gallery is not too happy with that.

The gallery founded in 1856 said it needs to recoup the 1 million pounds cost of digitalization program and threatened legal action. The gallery has ordered a well-known law firm to sue Coetzee unless the pictures are removed. Gallery officials say that although, the portraits are not in copyright, the photographs are and that they spent around £1m to create high resolution images, which therefore require a license fee. They say Wikipedia has not responded to their letters.

Wikipedia on its part is fully supportive of Coetzee and argues that the portraits are under public ownership. Deputy Director of the Wikipedia Foundation that runs the online encyclopedia, Erik Moeller said that museums and other cultural institutions should not pursue extra revenue while limiting public access to their material. He wrote in his blog post, “It is hard to see a plausible argument that excluding public domain content from a free, non-profit encyclopedia serves any public interest whatsoever.”

He also mentioned that two German photographic archives donated 350,000 copyrighted images for use on Wikipedia, and there have been other institutions in the United Kingdom and the US that have looked and understood the benefits of making their material available for the public free of charge. According to another Wikipedia volunteer, the gallery only makes around 10-15,000 pounds each year from Web licensing.

However, the gallery insists that it has been misrepresented and although it does not make much money from Web licensing, its income from reproduction of its images in magazines and books is much more, around 339,000 in the previous year.

Another point of contention is that of copyright laws in different countries. Coetzee is a US citizen where the laws pertaining to images of publicly owned art are different and the gallery opines that since the images are protected under U.K. copyright law, the law of the land rules. This raises interesting questions about how the local law affects websites that are located in other parts of the world.

This news has become a raging topic in cyberspace, leading to a conflict of words between supporters of free information and cultural institutions who wish to protect their limited revenue streams, which include the license fee for reproducing images of their artworks.

Opinions on this issue vary. While some support Wikipedia saying that people have a right to see these images as they are public property already; others insist that the likes of Wikipedia want to take advantage of the new technology and have everything for free, and if somebody takes the effort to produce the best picture possible, then they need to be protected. Since the gallery makes low to medium resolution images available free for people, many feel that it was wrong of Wikipedia to take the high resolution images.

Coetzee is the only one who has not yet commented on what is a repercussion of his deeds. It is left to be seen what route this controversy takes and if Wikipedia is stuck with the label of a thief.

Just the thought of our kids not carrying textbooks to school can be quite scary, as we have over the centuries, gotten used to associating textbooks with education. Textbooks are part of our lives and are considered indispensable – at least until now. Of course, for school-going kids, this could just be their dream coming true – NO MORE TEXTBOOKS!

Now, Arnold Schwarzenegger jokingly says, “I can use these for the (bicep) curls.” Announcing that California will initiate the process of going digital, he said, “Textbooks are outdated, in my opinion. For so many years, we’ve been trying to teach the kids exactly the same way.”

The excessive cost of textbooks is said to be a huge burden on a student who is already paying the cost of education. The average student spends hundreds of dollars on textbooks each year.

It is estimated that California spent about $350 million on textbooks alone last year. With California running out of cash with the $24 billion budget deficit, authorities figure this is one way of tackling the issue. The throwing away of textbooks might just be what the state needs to avoid bankruptcy.

California is the first state in the United States to begin using digital textbooks instead of the “paper” variety, and the Governor feels that this will save hundreds of millions of dollars. With the average cost of a textbook being anywhere from $75 to $100 each, their digital version is going to cost much less.

The Governor feels they are not going to miss out on anything and they will only be too happy to go online for their homework and studies, leaving their heavy textbooks behind. He says, “Our kids get their information from the internet, downloaded onto their iPods, and in Twitter feeds to their cell phones…Basically. Kids are feeling as comfortable with their electronic devices as I was with my pencils and crayons. So, why are California’s school students still forced to lug around antiquated, heavy, expensive textbooks?

Although, it is too early to say what the impact of this move would be or if it can be sustained in the long run, there have been opinions being voiced by all concerned.

Most of the teachers don’t like it one bit and it’s not just job security they are worried about. The fact is that they are so used to textbooks and consider them central to the school-teacher-student educational paradigm.

On the other hand, educators are embracing it, as there are several significant advantages. They will now be able to create electronic books and course material made up of only relevant material for a given course. Some of the advantages entail children and teens not having to lug their heavy backpacks around, especially in schools where they are not provided any lockers. Another problem that can be addressed with digitalization of textbooks is that schools in the affluent areas have up-to-date textbooks, while schools in the low-income communities have outdated textbooks. And some feel that this move to digital textbooks could even up the playing field and deal with the unfairness of this type of education where poorer students get the short end of the educational stick.

But as with anything else, the quality of the course content and experience will be the major determining factors that will affect successful adoption of this digitalization. Unsatisfactory content = bad experience = reduced learning.

While digital education may seem the way to go, there are several things to factor and one of the most important things is the devices needed to study online. It could turn out to be cheaper than books – eventually but what about right now?

This will cost nothing for students with electronic resources but for kids without these resources, the cost will be much more. According to some, going the all-electronic route will entail continuous buying of electronics for low-income students, and an ideal situation would be every child in a family needing one in order to do their homework and study properly.

Where will the poor children get the computers from? What about the glare of the computers and the posture problems? Isn’t it enough that our children spend so many hours online? Will it not be detrimental to their health?

Do we have answers to all these questions?

The reason for this huge growth is the new threats and malware that keep cropping up on an almost daily basis. An anti-virus product of today may prove to be inefficient tomorrow, creating a new demand. In fact, most vendors find it difficult to keep up with the different viruses that keep surfacing.

This is very clear from the fact that in spite of the numerous anti-virus products out there, there still are so many security incidents that take place, including high-profile ones. The Identity Theft Resource Center, an organization that tracks incidents where confidential information has been compromised, recorded that these incidents have doubled in the first quarter of 2008.

It is also seen that the market that is most affected by these security issues is the small and medium business sector. The problem with these businesses is their small budgets. They cannot afford to have the resources needed to implement and manage a high-security environment, with intricate anti-virus systems in place.

Now, with the technological advances, there seems to be a hope for them, in the form of Security-as-a-Service (SaaS). SaaS is nothing more than outsourcing of security.

The new concept of offering security services similar to how software services are offered, by hosting them “in the cloud” and providing businesses a web interface for interaction with the applications, is being seen as a great security solution. Earlier, anti-virus software had to be installed on the systems inside the company and either managed from within or remotely controlled by a service provider.

Subscribers to the SaaS system can now take advantage of content provided continuously, which helps companies manage their anti-virus systems much more efficiently and easily than ever before. Companies no longer have to waste their time trying to keep track of the new anti-virus products out there or spending huge amounts of money on the latest systems.

The SaaS model delivers end-point security in a wonderful way and the focus in the future is going to be on anti-virus, prevention of data leakage, end-point encryption etc. Companies, both small businesses and large ones, that start using the SaaS security alternative will be at a huge advantage and experience the highest levels of security that their companies look for.

Detecting and preventing targeted attacks is the main danger faced by most companies. All these risk factors are alleviated with the use of SaaS. No longer do they need to worry about upgrades that take time to implement and leave a gap in the security with a high probability of getting infected, and they do not need to put in the effort to detect new malware.

SaaS is being looked at as a complete end-point, web, email and network protection solution, leveraging the power of cloud computing, that saves time, effort and cost for companies; both small and big. It blocks all hacker attacks, viruses, spyware, and also identifies thieves from the servers. Anti-virus could be a thing of the past very soon.