Lets take the case of Internet Explorere's cookie policy.
"Advanced cookie filtering works by evaluating a Web site's privacy practices and deciding which cookies are acceptable based on the site's compact policies and on the user's own preferences. In the default settings, cookies that are used to collect personally identifiable information and do not allow users a choice in their use are considered "unsatisfactory." By default, unsatisfactory cookies are deleted in the first-party context when the browsing session ends and are rejected in the third-party context. In this way, users can choose to enjoy the benefits of cookies, while protecting themselves from unsatisfactory cookies." (msdn.microsoft.com)
I believe that programs such as the above are the key to the success of internet sucurity policy. People like to feel that they are a part of soemthing, that their opinion matters,and that they have a choice, so forcing anything upon them will never be the right solution. If you make people feel that they are part of a movement, turn the idea into a ''social'' thenomenon or in this case policy, they are more inclined to comply.
"When people interact, they do so with the understanding that their respective perceptions of reality are related, and as they act upon this understanding their common knowledge of reality becomes reinforced." This idea is also known as social constructionism. (wikipedia.org)
Which leads me to the connection... Social construction of technology, also known as SCOT, is a theory that has been studied for years. SCOT "holds that those who seek to understand the reasons for acceptance or rejection of a technology should look to the social world."
This theory has been proven successful through the examples of "MacKenzie’s (1990) account of the negotiations over the definition of missile accuracy, Pinch and Bijker’s (1987; Bijker 1995) work on early bicycles, Bijker’s (1987, 1995) studies of Bakelite and fluorescent lighting, Elzen’s (1986) work on ultracentrifuges, and Misa’s (1992) investigation of the manufacture of steel. (Klein/Kleinman)
(By the way I found Klein/Kleinmans paper to be fascinating!)
And so, I think the right approach would be to take the users and the corporations of the world and compose study groups to get feedback and come up with a policy which takes their concerns into account.
And why not throw hacker criminals in the group? After all, most hackers are in it for the thrill or fame (answer.com), and I am sure their ego's would be satisfied with the fame of helping develop a global internet security policy.
"Why Do Hackers Hack" Retrieved from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_hackers_hack
Klein, H., Kleinman, D "The Social Construction of Technology:Structional Considertions Retrieved from "http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~hk28/Klein02-SciTechHumanVal.pdf
"Privacy in Internet Explorer". Retrieved from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/ms537343(v=vs.85).aspx
Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
"Advanced cookie filtering works by evaluating a Web site's privacy practices and deciding which cookies are acceptable based on the site's compact policies and on the user's own preferences. In the default settings, cookies that are used to collect personally identifiable information and do not allow users a choice in their use are considered "unsatisfactory." By default, unsatisfactory cookies are deleted in the first-party context when the browsing session ends and are rejected in the third-party context. In this way, users can choose to enjoy the benefits of cookies, while protecting themselves from unsatisfactory cookies." (msdn.microsoft.com)
I believe that programs such as the above are the key to the success of internet sucurity policy. People like to feel that they are a part of soemthing, that their opinion matters,and that they have a choice, so forcing anything upon them will never be the right solution. If you make people feel that they are part of a movement, turn the idea into a ''social'' thenomenon or in this case policy, they are more inclined to comply.
"When people interact, they do so with the understanding that their respective perceptions of reality are related, and as they act upon this understanding their common knowledge of reality becomes reinforced." This idea is also known as social constructionism. (wikipedia.org)
Which leads me to the connection... Social construction of technology, also known as SCOT, is a theory that has been studied for years. SCOT "holds that those who seek to understand the reasons for acceptance or rejection of a technology should look to the social world."
This theory has been proven successful through the examples of "MacKenzie’s (1990) account of the negotiations over the definition of missile accuracy, Pinch and Bijker’s (1987; Bijker 1995) work on early bicycles, Bijker’s (1987, 1995) studies of Bakelite and fluorescent lighting, Elzen’s (1986) work on ultracentrifuges, and Misa’s (1992) investigation of the manufacture of steel. (Klein/Kleinman)
(By the way I found Klein/Kleinmans paper to be fascinating!)
And so, I think the right approach would be to take the users and the corporations of the world and compose study groups to get feedback and come up with a policy which takes their concerns into account.
And why not throw hacker criminals in the group? After all, most hackers are in it for the thrill or fame (answer.com), and I am sure their ego's would be satisfied with the fame of helping develop a global internet security policy.
"Why Do Hackers Hack" Retrieved from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_hackers_hack
Klein, H., Kleinman, D "The Social Construction of Technology:Structional Considertions Retrieved from "http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~hk28/Klein02-SciTechHumanVal.pdf
"Privacy in Internet Explorer". Retrieved from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/ms537343(v=vs.85).aspx
Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism
No comments:
Post a Comment