Not a made-for-TV movie anymore...

If you think cyberattacks are only American, think again. Recently, the Spanish arrested a Dutch man believed to be Cyberbunker's owner Sven Kamphuis for attacking the site Spamhaus, which is an anti-spam website. Reportedly, the man flooded the website with data in an attempt to bring the site down.

Internationally, cyber security is something that must be recognized. Forget the sci-fi fantasies of 20 years ago and bringing down the world with the push of a button. This is real.

America should make a note of this. While the military has security in place to monitor cyber attacks, it should also work internationally with others, as with this recent Spanish case. The man responsible for the cyberattack on Spamhaus will be transferred back to The Netherlands soon, getting more than one government involved. While America is monitor such attempts, working with other countries to form a universal international policy could work wonders for a future developing faster than we can imagine.

An article earlier this month also cites Cyberbunker and the Spamhaus attack, which commented that the attack ran "a pace that eventually peaked at 300 billion bits per second, several times the size of the attacks against the websites of U.S. banks in late December and early January." This should directly alert America to the importance of cyber security, since it has already suffered a massive attack, but there are those more brutal.

Also, it is believed that the attack was because of something reminiscent of childhood --Spamhaus blacklisted (or essentially said "no") spammers associated with Cyberbunker. Spamhaus acted like a parent of the Internet in their pursuit of preventing excessive spam to international users, and the child Cyberbunker thought the blacklisting was Spamhaus trying to control the Internet.

No, Spamhaus is trying to moderate scum that no one wants to see anyway. People want to check their email peacefully without being prompted to enroll for free tango lessons.

Writing all of this down, America? It is important whether big or small attacks.

The Internet's Double-Edged Sword: Boston

The one downside of the Internet is the greatest thing about it. Who knew.

With the unfortunate events of the Boston Marathon bombing, the Internet forum of users have given their feedback on who was responsible, leaving others worried for their lives at their wrong assumptions. Sunil Tripathi is innocent, and most importantly, still missing since he disappeared in March. One Reddit user in this article (which I highly recommend reading) even posted a comment apologizing to Sunil's family for assuming their son was one of the perpetrators.

But those on Reddit are not the only guilty. People on Facebook, Twitter, and 4Chan also collaborated to incriminate Sunil, and they were wrong. It could be a race thing, especially considering how news media repeatedly single-out minorities as criminals. But I'll let you analyze that at your leisure. Right now, this is about Freedom of Speech and the virtual forum.

The Internet is amazing, because it is a social space where people can gather and share opinions and move toward social change. The Arab Spring is often credited as occurring because of social media spreading the story of Mohamed Bouazizi who immolating himself in protest in Tunisia. However, the downside of the Internet is clear in this case of Sunil being the wrongly accused. Even though the media attention highlighted the fact that he is missing, and may even contribute to helping find him, there will still be a stigma placed on him and his family. Even though he has been accused wrongfully, he'll still be associated with the Boston bombing and will be stigmatized.

Perhaps this is why it is hard to find reader comments on BBC News. The UK also does not have a Freedom of Speech amendment as we do in America. Think about that.

Error 404: The terrorist you requested was not found.

Overall, the Internet is a great place for being a space transcending government where people can discuss and share. But when this sharing affects someone's life, from assuming someone is a suspect to cyberbullying, it can be a detrimental thing. We need to be aware of the comments and assumptions we make online, especially with people we do not know. If there was a rulebook for the Internet, this situation with Boston and Sunil would be an example of the detriment of online forums. But there is no rulebook. That's just not proper Internet etiquette.

Imagine what this means for politics. The Internet is becoming a new arena for discrimination, as noted about Google AdSense allegedly aligning stereotypical African-American names with running criminal record check ads online. Clearly, the Internet is more than telling your friends that you just ate Taco Bell and watched Twilight. It has deeper implications.

I don't blame those who accused Sunil of being the bomber. Times of crisis make people try to find a solution as soon as possible and blaming Sunil was probably the mass's way of fixing the problem and trying to heal. It's not exactly scapegoating, but identifying someone is better than people believing that there is an unknown terrorist still on the loose. I do, however, think people need to be more careful about what their voices mean as a collective in spaces of virtual free reign. You never know who is watching and waiting to jump on your words. It can be a good thing, as far as social change, but a bad thing, as far as incriminating the innocent.

This is the Internet culture.

Well, at least Grand Theft Auto isn't eligible...

Apparently, the European Union wants to investigate a planned tax break for game developers in the UK. This is not good news, since the UK already is wary on remaining in the EU for economic reasons. Now this?

While I don't believe in extreme tax breaks for the rich, this is important for the creativity of media. Without providing tax breaks of some form to gaming companies, there may be stagnation in development. Granted, it is easy for me to say this as an American who has never been to the UK, but gaming is international and will have international repurcussions.

What seals the deal for me is that the UK is being selective in games that receive tax breaks, as "Games with a primary focus of gambling or advertising would not qualify, and titles involving pornography or other 'extreme material' would also be excluded" per the BBC article.

In other words, games such as the Harry Potter Lego games are eligible for tax breaks. This game does not promote sex or violence, but creativity. Why halt a good thing? If this were Rockstar Games getting a tax break for Grand Theft Auto, I would not want my tax dollars going there. However, eligible games that are meant to inspire creativity in players is worth it for me. I say this and I'm not even a gamer.

Tiga, a UK video game trade organization, is reportedly disappointed in the tax break for quality games (games of action without gore) being called into question by the EU.

While some have concerns that enabling these tax breaks can actually reduce jobs, as with relocating the business and employees to tax-subsidized areas, it is worth a try in order to get incentives behind quality games that are better for youth than promoting killing prostitutes and stealing money. If there is a true concern over having to relocate in order to receive tax incentives, with enough backing, there can be accommodations in the future once it has been established. These difficulties will not last forever provided that we establish them and show it is a positive thing. This way, there may be incentives throughout all of the UK if the public sees it as a positive through establishing it in the first place.

In-game purchasing: Adults aren't "buying" it

First, there was advertising to children on TV, which boomed circa 1985. Then there was product placement in kids' TV. Now, game companies are aiming to get kids to spend money on virtual items on games for their smartphones and computers

Recently, Apple refunded over $2,600 USD to 5-year-old Danny Kitchen's parents (England) who let him play games on their iPad and ran up the bill playing Zombies versus Ninjas. In fact, it only took him 10 minutes to download an over $100 USD add-on 19 times.

Well, at least the kid looks happy...

The fact that Apple reimbursed the parents leads me to believe that Apple knows what they are doing in pressuring consumers, as paying the parents this large sum of money after the child's absent-minded downloads admits fault. It is self-incriminating.

Further, this article explains that in January 2013, there was a 300% increase in consumer complaints about add-ons fees for web games and games on iPads.

In my Social Media class, we discussed kids' addictions to games. While there are adolescents and adults not only in the U.S., but also in Japan, China, and in Europe spending large amounts of money on games, having a 5-year-old run up a large bill is ridiculous. While Danny may not be addicted as much as simply enjoying games, these games fees can easily get out of hand. To consider an adult spending this much money is equally concerning, because that money can be used for a mortgage payment, car insurance, or even a vacation --more important things than the instant gratification of collection virtual jewels.

 We know that WoW is a computer game that is highly focused on items and developing one's character. Imagine the amounts of money WoW addicts spend. Now image what adults trying to pass the time spend on silly smartphone games. Again, addiction is one thing, but money is another. The facade of spending 99cents here and there adds up over time and while adults may not be addicted, it is basically gambling. You cannot guarantee the add-ons will help you win the game, but money is still poured in. Overall, we need to be aware of the effects of buying add-ons and apps.

Moreso, we need to educate our children on media literacy.

Why {Pregnancy} and Poverty?

This documentary is beautifully terrifying. I never would have imaged that in the last 20 years, maternal mortality rates have worsened in the U.S.

Welcome to the World -Why Poverty? is a documentary that made its debut less than a month ago that follows three women -one from the US, one from Cambodia, and one from Sierra Leone- in pregnancy, giving birth, and taking care of their children. It is terrifying that no one talks about why these women are in poverty and must struggle to survive. The most terrifying thing is knowing that there are pregnant, homeless women in this world. In fact, the number of women who died in the documentary is far too many.

I don't want to tell everything about the documentary, but I will say this: Documentaries are important for giving voices to those who are outside the margins of society...all societies. I highly recommend watching this and seeing even how in the U.S. there are women struggling with pregnancy and homelessness. The clinic in Sierra Leone has the best intentions, but like the U.S., greed prevents resources from being shared. Since money is taboo in public discourse in the West, there is a need for documentaries to reach people and share stories of those struggling without it.

This documentary is much more than about pregnancy. I hope you will watch it and join the push for discourse in our world to make change.

Google and privacy? That's not relevant to America at all...

More Google news...seems that Google has been in the news a lot lately...

After giving Google a four-month deadline to change its privacy settings, six European data watchdogs, which are settled in heavyweights Germany and the UK as well as France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, are seeking to conduct more investigations into Google's privacy settings. In October 2012, Google was charged with not meeting the standards of the European Commission.

According to the Commission:

"Google should do more to let users see what information was held about them, provide tools to manage this data and take more care to ensure it did not store too much data about users."

Privacy will always be relevant as long as social media remains a communication tool. With debates about Facebook's privacy settings, Google is now becoming a target. If we consider Google Earth's ability to show someone's house in broad daylights to its other daunting ability to mark local pedophiles, we know that there are concerns in America regarding its policies as well.

Why hasn't this been addressed in America? And also, why is there rarely news about such Google cases in America? Can Taylor Swift's catalog of beaus be more important than talking about privacy issues in the world's most popular search engine that began in the States?

Even from past articles I have discussed and shared, they have usually been from a non-American source. Is it shame? The ignorance-is-bliss mentality? The few desensitizing the masses on real issues going on in this country? Hopefully the U.S. will take notice to such discussions that are just as relevant here --after all, I know where my house is on Google.