Post on 29-May-2018
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
1/24
GREEK REVIEW IN DIGITAL CIVIL SOCIETY AND DIGITAL RIGHTS
ee--kkooiinnoonniiaappoolliittoonn
e-ditorial 1
3
3
4
5
7
The Future of the Internet and
Democracy Beyond Metaphors,
Towards Policy 9
Texts Without Context 11
How Facebook is redifing privacy 12
The Battle for the Internet 13
Cyberwar War in the fifth domain 14
The threat from the internet 16
18
social media 21
e-: Scrabble- ville 23
2021 24
2021
, e- koinonia politon 6
. e- koinonia politon , (e-government)
(e- democracy), cyberwar,
,
.
www.koinoniapoliton.gr www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr
e- koinonia politon .
[ 6, 2010]
http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
2/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010
e-ditorial
To e-koinonia politon nline
16 .
online
.
,
. 1.750
5.300 newsletter e -
library 6
e-koinonia politon .
.
, , .
.
blogs
.
,
, .
, .
2021-
2021, 200 .
..,
. 2011 12
. e-
koinonia politon 6
1. 2. 3.
2021. . 4. -
- 5. ( ) 6.
.
,
. - -
. - -
.
.
e-koinonia politon online .
* /
A.
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
3/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010
.
.
. -
& , .
.
& . ;
.
. (. Joomla).
.
.
e-
consultation
.
MUN (Models of the United Nations)
.
,
.
.
.
* .
e-koinonia politon.
10 :
I.
,
II.
(cyber bullying)
.
III. ,
.
.
IV.
( & )
.
V. - .
(
).
VI. /
(.. )
VII.
/
.
/ -
.
VIII. ICANN
a. :b. : c. :
IX. /
X.
(Personal Digitization)
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
4/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010
;
;
,
. ,
,
.
, .
. ,
;
Hubert L. Dreyfus On the Internet, What the computers still cant do
Being-in-the- World .
,
- .
,
, .
.
,
.
e-
. e- learning, e- commerce, e- shopping, e- tourism, e- government, e- democracy, e- sex.
e-.
, , .
. (e-
learning). . , ,
- .
. .
, ,
, , ,
Evgeny Morozov Losing our minds to the web Prospect 22.6.2010
(http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/) -
.
.
, ,
, ,
.
-, ,
...
* Researcher LSE,
e-koinonia politon.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/06/losing-our-minds-to-the-web/8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
5/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010
,
,
,
.
1 :
, , ,
, , ,
. 1 , ,
, 15 2011
.
,
( ..
, ).
.
2
, , , (
),
.
,
( 7 ).
,
.
, :
) , , ,
, ,
, .
, .
)
.
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
6/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010
) , ,
,
.
) ,
, , ,
.
, ,
, .
) ,
, ,
,
.
) , ,
' ' .
) , ,
, ,
, , , ..
,
, , ,
,
, , , , , , ,
.
, ,
,
.
, , .
,
,
. ,
, ,
, .
* .
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
7/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010
" :
;
,
, ,
,
,
, . ;
, ,
.
. 8 15 2010
.
, : ) ,
, . )
. ) , ,
. ) ,
. ) ,
, ,
. ) , ,
) ,
.
, , : ) , ,
, . )
.
,
, ,
, ,
, , ,
.
. .
, . , , :
, . , . :
. , ,
.
. 57
:
. , ,
.
,
. , 47 . ,
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
8/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010
, .
. ,
.
,
, 34, .
, .
, .
, , .
.
, 27
.
, .
.
,
, , .
,
. .
. ;
. , . , .
; ; ,
, , ,
;
, ;
;
, .
.
, ...
; ;
, ;
;
; ,
, -
.
, ,
.
, ,
. ,
. ,
, , .
,
. ;
. ... !
*
.
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
9/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010
Exploring metaphors
Surfing on the information highway
The Internet is a vast, amorphous metaphor in search of
tangibility. A highway, an agora, a mall, a library, a portal, a
Web, a brain, an ethereal universe of bits and bytes. We surf,
we scroll, we browse, we search, we navigate, we post, we
chat, we lurk, we log on and we go offline.
For some, the Internet is that which lies within their
computer: the innards; a virtual mind; a cyber-soul. Talk of
controlling the Internet and of knowledge management
suggest that, like Frankensteins mind, the Internet has an
autonomous existence which humans must pacify or learn to
live with.
Anxieties about the Internets ever-expanding outpouring of
volcanic data suggest that its programmes, codes and design
are invulnerable to human control. Newspaper and magazine
articles (written in the solidity of print, the revious
Of course, transparency is central to democracy (and the Internet has a major democratic role to play in political
cultures dominated by secrecy, corruption and cover-ups), but e-democracy should amount to more than an online
peep-show into the institutions of power.milleniums volcanic lava) urge us to adapt to the world of
the Internet, as if the virtual universe is inherently bigger
than ours.
For others, the Internet is conceived as a socio-neural
network. Former US Vice-President Al Gore suggested, as
early as 1994, that We now can at last create a planetary
information network that transmits messages and images
with the speed of light from the largest city to the smallestvillage on every continent. (Gore, 1994) Castells notion of
the network society offers a metaphor of hope for a
society of increasingly unfathomable complexity (Castells,
1996). The metaphor suggests a paradox: on the one side,
increasing anomie, public alienation and privatisation; on
the other, spatio-temporal compression and the prospect of
a global village. But if villages have squares in which the
public can gather, networks have no obvious centre and
require us to think in new ways about the place of the
public.
Another, more populist metaphor, depicts the Internet as
an anarchic, Hobbesian jungle that engenders fear and calls
for legal protection. The Internet, we are told, attractspredators; our children are not safe there. And then there
are viruses (malicious ones, indeed), bugs, trojan horses,
crashes and memory loss. Objectively, it may be less safe to
give your credit card over the counter in a shop than
through a secure site on the Internet, but this is not how it
feels when dealing in faceless transactions. In a world where
honesty is judged by facial features and voice tone, the
absence of both feeds theimagination with images of cyber-
tricksters lurking the Web and luring the gullible. The
Internet becomes a metaphor for entrapment (a net; a web)
and users, like malleable addicts, surf innocently towards
cyber-exploitation.
In contrast to such apprehension, the Internet has also
spawned a plethora of utopian metaphors. The conception of
cyberspace as a technocratic dream-world follows a long
tradition of futuristic visions of humanity liberated from its
burdens by omnipotent technology. For William Gibson
(Gibson, 1984), the terms orginator, cyberspace constituted A
consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions oflegitimate operators in every nation A graphical
representation of data abstracted from the banks of every
computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines
of light ranged in the non-space of the mind, clusters and
constellations of data.
In 1996 John Perry Barlow published his Declaration of the
Independence of Cyberspace, a veritable constitution for an
autonomous, unworldly cyberutopia(Barlow, 1996).
Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought
itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the Web of our
communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and
nowhere, but it is not where bodies live. We are creating a world that all may enter without
privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power,
military force, or station of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone anywhere mayexpress his or her beliefs, no matter how singular,
without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity,movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all
based on matter, and there is no matter here.
Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain
order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics,
The Future of the Internet and Democracy Beyond Metaphors,
Towards Policy
By Professor Stephen Coleman
(Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom)
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
10/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
enlightened self-interest, and the commonwealth, our governance will emerge.
Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would
generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot
accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.
Barlows was not a lone voice. Other cyber-utopians foresaw the transformation of economic life in a world of e-commerce
(Kelly, 1996).
Someday soon, cyberspace the vast, intangible territory where computers meet and exchange information will be
populated with electronic communities and businesses. In your home, a protean box will hook you into a wealth of goods and
services. It will receive and send mail, let you make a phone or video call or send a fax or watch a mo vie or buy shoes or
diagnose a rash or pay bills or get cash (a new digital kind) or write your mother. That will be just the living -room
manifestation of what promises to be a radical-and rapid-transformation of commerce and society, the greatest since the
invention of the automobile.
While Kurzweil, described in the New York Times as a leading futurist ofour time, has asserted that (Kurzweil, 1999):By
2019 a $1 000 computer will at least match the processing power of the human brain. By 2029 the software for intelligence
will have been largely mastered and the average Personal computer will be equivalent to 1 000 brains.
Metaphors are never neutral. They convey ontological assumptions that are ideologically loaded but rarely decoded. As
Lakoff and Johnson warn, to ignore the significance of metaphors is to accept their sub- texts at face value (Lakoff and
Johnson, 1980). Talk of an Internet revolution only makes sense if one believes that history is technologically driven;
addressing the digital divide is only meaningful if it is somehow different from other social divisions rooted in inequality; the
promotion of virtual communities comprising netizens can be self-deluding without a chain of authentication between
online and real-life identities. This is not to disparage such metaphors, but to expose them to intellectual interrogation. The
Meaningful interactivity
Feedback is at the core of the democratic potential of the Internet. No information source before the Internet provided such
scope for direct responsiveness. Digital communication technologies break down the traditional barrier between producer and
consumer; broadcaster and audience. Citizens use the Internet to become informed, but also to inform others. All information
becomes susceptible to contestation. Internet users share knowledge about issues that matter to them, ranging from health to
travel to recipes to household tips. Participants in these sites tend to be both knowledge seekers and knowledge providers;
they respect the experience and expertise of others and expect their own to be respected. But when they go to most
Government or Parliament sites they feel peculiarly shut out, as if there could be nothing of value that they could bring to the
deliberative process.
Politicians should resist the delusion that e-democracy is simply aboutmaking themselves more transparent to the public.
Of course, transparency is central to democracy (and the Internet has a major democratic role to play in political cultures
dominated by secrecy, corruption and cover-ups), but e-democracy should amount to more than an online peep-show into the
institutions of power. For example, webcasting the proceedings of parliamentary committees is democratically laudable, but
there is little evidence that this is what the public wishes to see. MPs diaries being published online might provide minor
added value for journalists, but few citizens are likely to feel much empowered by this. The Internet is more than TV for small
audiences. To neglect the two-way path of digital communication is to miss its point.
On those occasions when citizens have been invited into the process ofpolicy deliberation, such as in the online consultations
run by the Hansard Society for committees in the British Parliament, their response has been overwhelmingly positive. They
move from believing that nobody in authority cares what they think to a greater sense of their own capacity to influence
policy.
Early writers about the Internet made much of its tendency towards disintermediation. For some, interactivity came to be
identified with synchronicity and the absence of mediating forces. But without mediation, how do people know what
information to trust? Without moderation, how does the chatter of countless, competing voices turn into an environment for
listening and learning as well as speaking? It is surely a mistake to confuse the immediacy of digital communication with non-
mediation. Filtration of online information, and entry barriers to deliberative discussion, should be unrestrictive, transparent
and accountable, but they should certainly not be absent. If citizens are to interact with their representatives and with one
another, in a bid to inform and enrich policy and legislation, they are entitled to the protection of fair rules and tested
procedures. If elected representatives and Government are to enter into the public conversation and learn from it, they should
have access to trusted (independently produced) summaries of the publics evidence and mood.
:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdfhttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
11/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
Texts Without Context
By Michiko KakutaniMr. Shieldss book consists of 618
fragments, including hundreds of
quotations taken from other writers like
Philip Roth,Joan DidionandSaul Bellow
quotations that Mr. Shields, 53, has taken
out of context and in some cases, he says,
also revised, at least a little for the
sake of compression, consistency or
whim.
He only acknowledges the source of these
quotations in an appendix, which he says
his publishers lawyers insisted he add.
In his deliberately provocative and
deeply nihilistic new book, Reality
Hunger, the onetime novelist David
Shields asserts that fiction has never
seemed less central to the cultures sense
of itself. He says hes bored by out-and-
out fabrication, by myself and others;
bored by invented plots and invented
characters and much more interested in
confession and reality-based art. His
own book can be taken as Exhibit A in
what he calls recombinant or
appropriation art.
ts clear that technology and the mechanisms of the Web have been accelerating certain trends already percolating
through our culture including the blurring of news and entertainment, a growing polarization in national politics, a
deconstructionist view of literature [...] and a growing cultural relativism.
Who owns the words? Mr. Shields asks in a passage that is itself an unacknowledged reworking of remarks by the cyberpunk
author William Gibson. Who owns the music and the rest of our culture? We do all of us though not all of us know it yet.
Reality cannot be copyrighted.
Mr. Shieldss pasted-together book and defense of appropriation underscore the contentious issues of copyright, intellectual
property and plagiarism that have become prominent in a world in which the Internet makes copying and recycling as simple as
pressing a couple of buttons. In fact, the dynamics of the Web, as the artist and computer scientist Jaron Lanier observes in
another new book, are encouraging authors, journalists, musicians and artists to treat the fruits of their intellects andimaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind. Its not just a question of how these content producers
are supposed to make a living or finance their endeavors, however, or why they ought to allow other people to pick apart their
work and filch choice excerpts. Nor is it simply a question of experts and professionals being challenged by an increasingly
democratized marketplace. Its also a question, as Mr. Lanier, 49, astutely points out in his new book,You Are Not a Gadget,of
how online collectivism, social networking and popular software designs are changing the way people think and process
information, a question of what becomes of originality and imagination in a world that prizes metaness and regards the mash-
up as more important than the sources who were mashed.
Mr. Laniers book, which makes an impassioned case for a digital humanism, is only one of many recent volumes to take a hard
but judicious look at some of the consequences of new technology and Web 2.0. Among them are several prescient books by
Cass Sunstein, 55, which explore the effects of the Internet on public discourse; Farhad Manjoos True Enough, which examines
how new technologies are promoting the cultural ascendancy of belief over fact;The Cult of the Amateur,by Andrew Keen,
which argues that Web 2.0 is creating a digital forest of mediocrity and substituting ill -informed speculation for genuine
expertise; and Nicholas Carrs book The Shallows (coming in June), which suggests that increased Internet use is rewiring o ur
brains, impairing our ability to think deeply and creatively even as it improves our ability to multitask. []
New York Times 17.3.2010.
:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/21mash.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/philip_roth/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/philip_roth/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/joan_didion/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/joan_didion/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/joan_didion/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/saul_bellow/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/saul_bellow/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/saul_bellow/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/books/review/Sante-t.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/books/review/Sante-t.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/books/review/Sante-t.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/books/15book.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/books/15book.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/books/15book.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/cass_r_sunstein/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/cass_r_sunstein/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/21mash.html?_r=1&pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/21mash.html?_r=1&pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/21mash.html?_r=1&pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/21mash.html?_r=1&pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/cass_r_sunstein/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/books/15book.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/books/review/Sante-t.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/books/review/Sante-t.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/saul_bellow/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/joan_didion/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/philip_roth/index.html?inline=nyt-per8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
12/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
How Is Redefining Privacy
by Dan Fletcher
Sometime in the next few weeks, Facebook will
officially log its 500 millionth active citizen. If the
website were granted terra firma, it would be the
world's third largest country by population, two-
thirds bigger than the U.S. More than 1 in 4 people
who browse the Internet not only have a Facebook
account but have returned to the site within the
past 30 days.
Just six years after Harvard undergraduate Mark
Zuckerberg helped found Facebook in his dorm
room as a way for Ivy League students to keep tabs
on one another, the company has joined the ranks
of the Web's great superpowers. Microsoft made
computers easy for everyone to use. Google helps
us search out data. YouTube keeps us entertained.But Facebook has a huge advantage over those
other sites: the emotional investment of its users.
Facebook makes us smile, shudder, squeeze into
photographs so we can see ourselves online later,
fret when no one responds to our witty remarks,
snicker over who got fat after high school, pause
during weddings to update our relationship status
to Married or codify a breakup by setting our
status back to Single. (I'm glad we can still be
friends, Elise.) Getting to the point where so many
of us are comfortable living so much of our life on
Facebook represents a tremendous cultural shift,particularly since 28% of the site's users are older
than 34, Facebook's fastest-growing demographic.
Facebook has changed our social DNA, making us
more accustomed to openness. But the site is
premised on a contradiction: Facebook is rich in
intimate opportunities you can celebrate your
niece's first steps there and mourn the death of a
close friend but the company is making money
because you are, on some level, broadcasting
those moments online. The feelings you
experience on Facebook are heartfelt; the data
you're providing feeds a bottom line.
The willingness of Facebook's users to share and
overshare from descriptions of our bouts of food
poisoning (gross) to our uncensored feelings about
our bosses (not advisable) is critical to its success.
Thus far, the company's m.o. has been to press users
to share more, then let up if too many of them
complain. Because of this, Facebook keeps findingitself in the crosshairs of intense debates about
privacy. It happened in 2007, when the default
settings in an initiative called Facebook Beacon sent
all your Facebook friends updates about purchases
you made on certain third-party sites. Beacon
caused an uproar among users who were
automatically enrolled and occasioned a public
apology from Zuckerberg.
And it is happening again. To quell the latest
concerns of users and of elected officials in the
U.S. and abroad Facebook is getting ready to
unveil enhanced privacy controls. The changes are
coming on the heels of a complaint filed with the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on May 5 by the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, which takes
issue with Facebook's frequent policy changes and
tendency to design privacy controls that are, if not
deceptive, less than intuitive. (Even a company
spokesman got tripped up trying to explain to me
why my co-worker has a shorter privacy-controls
menu than I do.) The 38-page complaint asks the
FTC to compel Facebook to clarify the privacy
settings attached to each piece of information we
post as well as what happens to that data after weshare it.
Facebook is readjusting its privacy policy at a time
when its stake in mining our personal preferences
has never been greater. In April, it launched a major
initiative called Open Graph, which lets Facebook
users weigh in on what they like on the Web, from a
story on TIME.com to a pair of jeans from Levi's. The
logic is that if my friends recommend something, I'll
be more inclined to like it too. And because
Facebook has so many users and because so
many companies want to attract those users'
eyeballs Facebook is well positioned to display its
members' preferences on any website, anywhere.
Less than a month after Open Graph's rollout, more
than 100,000 sites had integrated the technology.
[]
Time 20.5.2010.
:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,
1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1990582,00.html#ixzz0qBWZ8Y8o/8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
13/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
The Battle for the Internet
By Bernard Kouchner
PARIS In 2015, 3.5 billion people half of mankind
will have access to the Internet. There has never been
such a revolution in freedom of communication andfreedom of expression. But how will this new medium
be used? What obstacles will the enemies of the
Internet come up with?
Extremist, racist and defamatory Web sites and blogs
disseminate odious opinions in real time. They have
made the Internet a weapon of war and hate. Web sites
are attacked. Violent movements spread propaganda
and false information. It is very hard for democracies to
control them. I do not subscribe to the nave belief that
a new technology, however efficient and powerful, is
bound to advance liberty on all fronts.
Yet, the distortions are the exception rather than therule. The Internet is above all the most fantastic means
of breaking down the walls that close us off from one
another. For the oppressed peoples of the world, the
Internet provides power beyond their wildest hopes. It is
increasingly difficult to hide a public protest, an act of
repression or a violation of human rights. In
authoritarian and repressive countries, mobile
telephones and the Internet have given citizens a critical
means of expression, despite all the restrictions.
However, the number of countries that censor the
Internet and monitor Web users is increasing at an
alarming rate. The Internet can be a formidable
intelligence-gathering tool for spotting potentialdissidents. Some regimes are already acquiring
increasingly sophisticated surveillance technology.
If all of those who are attached to human rights and
democracy refused to compromise their principles and
used the Internet to defend freedom of expression, this
kind of repression would be much more difficult. I am
not talking about absolute freedom, which opens the
door to all sorts of abuses. Nobody is promoting that.
Im talking about real freedom, based on the principle of
respecting human dignity and rights.
Multilateral institutions like the Council of Europe, and
nongovernmental organizations like Reporters WithoutBorders, along with thousands of individuals around the
world, have made a strong commitment to these issues.
No fewer than 180 countries meeting for the World
Summit on the Information Society have acknowledged
that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies
fully to the Internet, especially Article 19, which
establishes freedom of expression and opinion. And yet,
some 50 countries fail to live up to their commitments.
We should create an international instrument for
monitoring such commitments and for calling
governments to task when they fail to live up to them. We
should provide support to cyber-dissidents the same
support as other victims of politicalrepression. We should
also discuss the wisdom of adopting a code of conduct
regarding the export of technologies for censoring the
Internet and tracking Web users.
These issues, along with others, like the protection of
personal data, should be addressed within a framework
that brings together government, civil society and
international experts.
Another project is close to my heart. It will be a long and
difficult task to implement it, but it is critical. It is to give
the Internet a legal status that reflects its universality.
One that recognizes it as an international space, so that it
will be more difficult for repressive governments to use
the sovereignty argument against fundamental freedoms.
The battle of ideas has started between the advocates of
a universal and open Internet based on freedom of
expression, tolerance and respect for privacy against
those who want to transform the Internet into a
multitude of closed-off spaces that serve the purposes of
repressive regimes, propaganda and fanaticism.
Freedom of expression, said Voltaire, is the foundation
of all other freedoms. Without it, there are no free
nations. This universal spirit of the Enlightenment should
run through the new media. The defense of fundamental
freedoms and human rights must be the priority for
governance of the Internet. It is everyones business.
*Bernard Kouchner is the foreign minister of France and
founder of Mdecins Sans Frontires.
New York Times
13.5.2010.
:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedko
uchner.html/
Freedom of expression, said Voltaire,
is the foundation of all other
freedoms. Without it, there are no
free nations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14ihtedkouchner.html/8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
14/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
Cyberwar
War in the fifth domain
Are the mouse and keyboard the new
weapons of conflict?
Mr Obama has quoted a figure of $1 trillion lost last year to cybercrimea bigger underworld than the drugs trade,
though such figures are disputed. Banks and other companies do not like to admit how much data they lose.
[] After land, sea, air and space, warfare has
entered the fifth domain: cyberspace. President
Barack Obama has declared Americas digital
infrastructure to be a strategic national asset and
appointed Howard Schmidt, the former head of
security at Microsoft, as his cyber-security tsar. In
May the Pentagon set up its new Cyber Command
(Cybercom) headed by General Keith Alexander,
director of the National Security Agency (NSA). His
mandate is to conduct full-spectrum operations
to defend American military networks and attack
other countries systems. Precisely how, and by
what rules, is secret.
Britain, too, has set up a cyber-security policy
outfit, and an operations centre based in GCHQ, the
British equivalent of the NSA. China talks of winning
informationised wars by the mid-21st century. Many
other countries are organising for cyberwar, among them
Russia, Israel and North Korea. Iran boasts of having the
worlds second-largest cyber-army.
What will cyberwar look like? In a new book Richard
Clarke, a former White House staffer in charge of counter-
terrorism and cyber-security, envisages a catastrophic
breakdown within 15 minutes. Computer bugs bring down
military e-mail systems; oil refineries and pipelines
explode; air-traffic-control systems collapse; freight and
metro trains derail; financial data are scrambled; the
electrical grid goes down in the eastern United States;
orbiting satellites spin out of control. Society soon breaks
down as food becomes scarce and money runs out. Worst
of all, the identity of the attacker may remain a mystery.
[]
For the top brass, computer technology is both a blessing
and a curse. Bombs are guided by GPS satellites; drones
are piloted remotely from across the world; fighter planes
and warships are now huge data-processing centres; even
the ordinary foot-soldier is being wired up. Yet
growing connectivity over an insecure internet
multiplies the avenues for e-attack; and growing
dependence on computers increases the harm
they can cause.
By breaking up data and sending it over multiple
routes, the internet can survive the loss of large
parts of the network. Yet some of the global digital
infrastructure is more fragile. More than nine-
tenths of internet traffic travels through undersea
fibre-optic cables, and these are dangerously
bunched up in a few choke-points, for instance
around New York, the Red Sea or the Luzon Strait
in the Philippines (see map). Internet traffic is
directed by just 13 clusters of potentially
vulnerable domain-name servers. Other dangers
are coming: weakly governed swathes of Africa are
being connected up to fibre-optic cables,
potentially creating new havens for cyber-
criminals. And the spread of mobile internet will
bring new means of attack.
The internet was designed for convenience and
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
15/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
reliability, not security. Yet in wiring together the globe, it
has merged the garden and thewilderness. No passport is
required in cyberspace. And although police are constrained
by national borders, criminals roam freely. Enemy states are
no longer on the other side of the ocean, but just behind the
firewall. The ill-intentioned can mask their identity and
location, impersonate others and con their way into the
buildings that hold the digitised wealth of the electronic age:
money, personal data and intellectual property. []
About nine-tenths of the 140 billion e-mails sent daily are
spam; of these about 16% contain moneymaking scams (see
chart 1), including phishing attacks that seek to dupe
recipients into giving out passwords or bank details, according
to Symantec, a security-software vendor. The amount of
information now available online about individuals makes it
ever easier to attack a computer by crafting a personalised e-
mail that is more likely to be trusted and opened. This is
known as spear-phishing.
The ostentatious hackers and virus-writers who once wrecked
computers for fun are all but gone, replaced by criminal gangs
seeking to harvest data. [] Hackers have become wholesaleproviders of malwareviruses, worms and Trojans that infect
computersfor others to use. Websites are now the
favoured means of spreading malware, partly because the
unwary are directed to them through spam or links posted on
social-networking sites. And poorly designed websites often
provide a window into valuable databases.
Malware is exploding. It is typically used to steal passwords
and other data, or to open a back door to a computer so
that it can be taken over by outsiders. Such zombie
machines can be linked up to thousands, if not millions, of
others around the world to create a botnet. Estimates for
the number of infected machines range up to 100m (see
map for global distribution of infections). Botnets are used
to send spam, spread malware or launch distributed denial-
of-service (DDoS) attacks, which seek to bring down a
targeted computer by overloading it with countless bogus
requests. []
Apocalypse or asymmetry?
Deterrence in cyber-warfare is more uncertain than, say, in
nuclear strategy: there is no mutually assured destruction,the dividing line between criminality and war is blurred and
identifying attacking computers, let alone the fingers on the
keyboards, is difficult. Retaliation need not be confined to
cyberspace; the one system that is certainly not linked to
the public internet is Americas nuclear firing chain. Still, the
more likely use of cyber-weapons is probably not to bring
about electronic apocalypse, but as tools of limited warfare.
Cyber-weapons are most effective in the hands of big states.
But because they are cheap, they may be most useful to the
comparatively weak. They may well suit terrorists.
Fortunately, perhaps, the likes of al-Qaeda have mostly used
the internet for propaganda and communication. It may be
that jihadists lack the ability to, say, induce a refinery to
blow itself up. Or it may be that they prefer the gory theatre
of suicide-bombings to the anonymity of computer
sabotagefor now.
he Economist 1.7.2010.
:
http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792
http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=164787928/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
16/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
Cyberwar
The threat from the internet
It is time for countries to start
talking about arms control on the
internet
THROUGHOUT history new
technologies have revolutionised
warfare, sometimes abruptly,
sometimes only gradually: think of the
chariot, gunpowder, aircraft, radar
and nuclear fission. So it has been
with information technology.
Computers and the internet have
transformed economies and given
Western armies great advantages,
such as the ability to send remotely
piloted aircraft across the world to
gather intelligence and attack targets.
But the spread of digital technology
comes at a cost: it exposes armies and
societies to digital attack.
The threat is complex, multifaceted
and potentially very dangerous.
Modern societies are ever more
reliant on computer systems linked to
the internet, giving enemies more
avenues of attack. If power stations,
refineries, banks and air-traffic-
control systems were brought down,
people would lose their lives. Yet
there are few, if any, rules incyberspace of the kind that govern
behaviour, even warfare, in other
domains. As with nuclear- and
conventional-arms control, big
countries should start talking about
how to reduce the threat from
cyberwar, the aim being to restrict
attacks before it is too late.
The army reboots
Cyberspace has become the fifth domain of warfare, after land, sea, air and
space. Some scenarios imagine the almost instantaneous failure of the
systems that keep the modern world turning. As computer networks collapse,
factories and chemical plants explode, satellites spin out of control and the
financial and power grids fail.
That seems alarmist to many experts. Yet most agree that infiltrating networks
is pretty easy for those who have the will, means and the time to spare.
Governments know this because they are such enthusiastic hackers
themselves. Spies frequently break into computer systems to steal information
by the warehouse load, whether it is from Google or defence contractors.
Penetrating networks to damage them is not much harder. And, if you take
enough care, nobody can prove you did it.
The cyber-attacks on Estonia in 2007 and on Georgia in 2008 (the latter
strangely happened to coincide with the advance of Russian troops across the
Caucasus) are widely assumed to have been directed by the Kremlin, but they
could be traced only to Russian cyber-criminals. Many of the computers used
in the attack belonged to innocent Americans whose PCs hadbeen hijacked.Companies suspect China of organizing mini-raids to ransack Western know-
how: but it could just have easily been Western criminals, computer-hackers
showing off or disillusioned former employees. One reason why Western
governments have until recently been reticent about cyber-espionage is surely
because they are dab hands at it, too.
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
17/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
As with nuclear bombs, the existence of cyber-weapons does not in
itself mean they are about to be used. Moreover, an attacker
cannot be sure what effect an assault will have on another country,
making their deployment highly risky. That is a drawback forsophisticated military machines, but not necessarily for terrorists or
the armies of rogue states. And it leaves the dangers of online
crime and espionage.
All this makes for dangerous instability. Cyber-weapons are being
developed secretly, without discussion of how and when they might
be used. Nobody knows their true power, so countries must
prepare for the worst. Anonymity adds to the risk that mistakes,
misattribution and miscalculation will lead to military escalation
with conventional weapons or cyberarms. The speed with which
electronic attacks could be launched gives little time for cool-
headed reflection and favors early, even pre-emptive, attack. Evenas computerized weapons systems and wired infantry have blown
away some of the fog of war from the battlefield, they have
covered cyberspace in a thick, menacing blanket of uncertainty.
One response to this growing threat has been military. Iran claims
to have the worlds second-largest cyber-army. Russia, Israel and
North Korea boast efforts of theirown. America has set up its new
Cyber Command both to defend its networks and devise attacks on
its enemies. NATO is debating the extent to which it should count
cyberwar as a form of armed attack that would oblige its
members to come to the aid of an ally.
But the world needs cyberarms-control as well as cyber-
deterrence. America has until recently resisted weapons treaties for
cyberspace for fear that they could lead to rigid global regulation of
the internet, undermining the dominance of American internet
companies, stifling innovation and restricting the openness that
underpins the net. Perhaps America also fears that its own
cyberwar effort has the most to lose if its well-regarded cyberspies
and cyber-warriors are reined in.
Such thinking at last shows signs of changing, and a good thing too.
America, as the country most reliant on computers, is probably
most vulnerable to cyber-attack. Its conventional military power
means that foes will look for asymmetric lines of attack. And thewholesale loss of secrets through espionage risks eroding its
economic and military lead.
Economist 3.7.2010
:
http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=16481504
Hardware and soft war
If cyberarms-control is to Americas
advantage, it would be wise to shape such
accords while it still has the upper hand in
cyberspace. General Keith Alexander, the
four-star general who heads Cyber Command,
is therefore right to welcome Russias
longstanding calls for a treaty as a startingpoint for international debate. That said, a
START-style treaty may prove impossible to
negotiate. Nuclear warheads can be counted
and missiles tracked. Cyber-weapons are
more like biological agents; they can be made
just about anywhere.
So in the meantime countries should agree on
more modest accords, or even just informal
rules of the road that would raise the
political cost of cyber-attacks. Perhaps there
could be a deal to prevent the crude denial-
of-service assaults that brought down
Estonian and Georgian websites with a mass
of bogus requests for information; NATO and
the European Union could make it clear that
attacks in cyberspace, as in the real world, will
provoke a response; the UN or signatories of
the Geneva Conventions could declare that
cyber-attacks on civilian facilities are, like
physical attacks with bomb and bullet, out of
bounds in war; rich countries could exert
economic pressure on states that do not
adopt measures to fight online criminals.
Countries should be encouraged to spell out
their military policies in cyberspace, as
America does for nuclear weapons, missiledefence and space. And there could be an
international centre to monitor cyber-attacks,
or an international duty to assist countries
under cyber-attack, regardless of the
nationality or motive of the attackerakin to
the duty of ships to help mariners in distress.
The internet is not a commons, but a
network of networks that are mostly privately
owned. A lot could also be achieved by
greater co-operation between governments
and the private sector. But in the end more of
the burden for ensuring that ordinary
peoples computer systems are not co-optedby criminals or cyber-warriors will end up with
the latterespecially the internet-service
providers that run the network. They could
take more responsibility for identifying
infected computers and spotting attacks as
they happen.
None of this will eradicate crime, espionage
or wars in cyberspace. But it could make the
world a little bit safer.
http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=16481504http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=16481504http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=164815048/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
18/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
Ann Macintosh
(ICTs)
. ,
ICTs .
. ICTs e-
.
ICTs ,
,
,
.
21
,
. ,
. ' ,
.
, - ,
(SMS). , Caltech MIT (2001)
. Cybervote, on-line
,
, , (. www.eucybervote.org).
, .
(Jefferson , 2004) SERVE
(Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment) . -
FVAP ( )
2004.
.
, ,
.
(. . Xenakis, 2004).
. ,
, . ,
.
.
( )
. , (, 2001), -
-
-
.
:
http://www.eucybervote.org/http://www.eucybervote.org/http://www.eucybervote.org/http://www.eucybervote.org/http://www.eucybervote.org/http://www.eucybervote.org/http://www.eucybervote.org/8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
19/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 1
on-line , (2004).
ICTs
.
.
:
1. N .2. N .3. N
.
4. N .
,
.
, :
X X X .
.
.
;
.
- (web portals)
: .
: . .
, , .
: .
,
,
.
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
20/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 2
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
, ,
, , chat-rooms .
.
, ,
.
, ,
.
:
http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569* Ann Macintosh
(e-governance)
Napier
.
.
Napier,
.
,
,
.
" ",
"UK-Online"
.
.
(ICT)
.).
http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=3569http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_ITEM_ID=35698/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
21/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 2
social media;
450 ., 1/3
, , 1/4 ,
, ! O
,
social media,
MySpace, Twitter .. ,
.
3-4
700-800%
,
, .
..
.
sites
blogs. e-
mail instant messages. O
sms mms,
,
.. walls Facebook MySpace.
-;
, ,
;
,
. Maryland 200
, , ,
. ,
. , social media
, . , , ,
; , 48%
Facebook .. ,
8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
22/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 2
, Pew Internet American Life Project
blogging
. macro-blogging micro-blogging.
(55% 18-29 27% 12-17)
. blogging,
. ,
30, blogging .
on-line ,
. Facebook Mark Zuckerberg,
. social
media. uckerberg
Reid Hoffman, Linkendin, N
.
, .
31 Quit Facebook,
. ,
. ,
.
,
social media . , ,
; ; ,
.
150 . Dunbar ( Robin
Dunbar, cognitive limit).
, .
, UCLA
. ,
. ,
20 ,
-
Athens Voice 22.7.2010.
:http://www.athensvoice.gr/the paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-
%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-
%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-media
*-
http://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-mediahttp://www.athensvoice.gr/the%20paper/article/311/%CF%80%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BF-%C2%AB%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AC%C2%BB-%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CF%84%CE%B1-social-media8/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
23/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
2010 2
e- : Scrabble- Ville
, , .
,
... .
(- , ,
)
.
,
, ,
. , ,
, ,
.
,
,
, -
.
Brain raining Games.
(http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.episthmh-
texnologia&id=177069)
Medical Research Council
BBC,
,
.
, ,
.
,
.
online
game Zoo Facebook. Zoo
2.000
. ,
-
2010:
.
.
face to face.
... scrabble-ville!
O Tom Chatfield,
Fun Inc: Why Games are the 21st Century's Most Serious
Business
(http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-
games-crush-all-media/)
TEDGlobal
:
.
Chatfield
,
.
e- gaming
,
. ,
,
, . ,
,
. ,
, !
:
:
http://www.greekscrabble.gr/
-:http://www.scrabbleclub.gr/
:
http://www.thesscrabble.gr/
:
http://www.geocities.com/scrabblegreek/
:
http://scrabbleptolemaida.gr/
http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.episthmh-texnologia&id=177069http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.episthmh-texnologia&id=177069http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.episthmh-texnologia&id=177069http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.episthmh-texnologia&id=177069http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.episthmh-texnologia&id=177069http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://www.greekscrabble.gr/http://www.greekscrabble.gr/http://www.scrabbleclub.gr/http://www.scrabbleclub.gr/http://www.thesscrabble.gr/http://www.thesscrabble.gr/http://www.geocities.com/scrabblegreek/http://www.geocities.com/scrabblegreek/http://scrabbleptolemaida.gr/http://scrabbleptolemaida.gr/http://scrabbleptolemaida.gr/http://www.geocities.com/scrabblegreek/http://www.thesscrabble.gr/http://www.scrabbleclub.gr/http://www.greekscrabble.gr/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/07/15/why-video-games-crush-all-media/http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fun-Inc-Centurys-Serious-Business/dp/0753519852http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.episthmh-texnologia&id=177069http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.episthmh-texnologia&id=1770698/9/2019 E- Koinonia Politon No 6
24/24
ee-- kkooiinnoonniiaa ppoolliittoonn
e
e- Koinonia Politon
:
:
/ :
:
:
:
:. 18
10671
T/: 2103616254
www.koinoniapoliton.gr
www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr
paremvassi@ath.forthnet.gr
-
2007- 2010
2021 -
2021
.
.
, ,
, 1995, ,
:
2021-
2021 (200 ).
2010 ..,
2011.
Eurobank.
, :
/ / / /
: ;
http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/mailto:paremvassi@ath.forthnet.grmailto:paremvassi@ath.forthnet.grmailto:paremvassi@ath.forthnet.grhttp://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/