Media Security: How Much do we Have Online?

The hacker group Lulz Security is claiming it released log-in information for 62,000 private Internet accounts Thursday, including Facebook, PayPal, dating sites, Xbox Live and Twitter. These accounts include addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, credit card numbers, even identities; all online. People are being effected all over the world. The list of "victims" span from Canada to New Zeland.

But if you think about this from a logical point of view: who is really to blame? Although the hackers did "steal" the information from the respective owners, it was the owners who made the information so accessible. When you really think about it, the amount of personal characteristics that are put on the internet is unnecessary and in reality, quite a deficient way to run a society. These thieves have the ability to commit major crimes (stealing money, but more importantly identity theft) from the comfort of their own homes, with only the need for a username.

Beyond peoples individual "facebook lives", beyond their credit cards, beyond their video game accounts; these hackers are able to threaten entire countries by "attacking" governmental websites. If the information that is available online is important enough to be valued as a threat, why have it online? Obviously security and firewalls are enabled to protect it, but why take that risk? Are people really that attached to the social media, that they need the ability to share it no matter the content? I guarantee this problem would never occur 20 years ago when media wasn’t such a prominent aspect of our lives.

In conclusion, specific media texts are, and will always be confidential to certain groups of people, but what is hard to understand, is why this fact is not respected or protected? As we see with many other media sources, the audience can be controlled, but the best solution to such a ignorant problem is, don’t make the criminal’s job easy: take it off..

Micheal Jackson's Thriller Jacket Goes to Auction

The red and black leather jacket worn by Michael Jackson in the Thriller video is expected sell for $200,000 US when it comes up for auction later this month. The jacket, autographed by the King of Pop as a gift to longtime costume designers Dennis Tompkins and Michael Bush, is to be sold during the Music Icons auction scheduled for June 25 and 26 in Beverly Hills, Calif.

A portion of the proceeds from the sale will benefit the Shambala Preserve, where Jackson's two Bengal tigers, Thriller and Sabu, are now living. Other Jackson items up for sale include a wig he wore , a spangled glove he wore at the American Music Awards and towels from the "Neverland Ranch". The singer known as the King of Pop died in June 2009.

The media is the sole reason of why this jacket can gain such a profit. It just goes to show how prominent people such as Micheal Jackson are to individual's lives, because of how they were represented in the media. Television shows such as MTV, illuminates artists and in a sense, gives them a godly stature, which is what happened to Micheal Jackson; because of the production media provided him with, he was able to become a superstar. In turn, the production MTV and other broadcasters epitomized, created a target audience that continually grew and grew.

Although Micheal Jackson is one of the most famous individuals ever to exist on the planet, this phenomenon (creating superstars) can, and is happening currently. The production of media texts and visuals intending on accumulating a target audience is what most celebrities and pop stars rely on for a living.

So we must ask ourselves, is it that ridiculous: a leather jacket, an easily purchasable item common in many stores, can sell for $200 000 just because of who has worn it? Not when the media is involved.