e- koinonia politon no 6

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/


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.


3/24


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)


4/24


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/


5/24


2010

,

,

,

.

1 :

, , ,

, , ,

. 1 , ,

, 15 2011

.

,

( ..

, ).

.

2

, , , (

),

.

,

( 7 ).

,

.

, :

) , , ,

, ,

, .

, .

)

.


6/24


2010

) , ,

,

.

) ,

, , ,

.

, ,

, .

) ,

, ,

,

.

) , ,

' ' .

) , ,

, ,

, , , ..

,

, , ,

,

, , , , , , ,

.

, ,

,

.

, , .

,

,

. ,

, ,

, .

* .


7/24


2010

" :

;

,

, ,

,

,

, . ;

, ,

.

. 8 15 2010

.

, : ) ,

, . )

. ) , ,

. ) ,

. ) ,

, ,

. ) , ,

) ,

.

, , : ) , ,

, . )

.

,

, ,

, ,

, , ,

.

. .

, . , , :

, . , . :

. , ,

.

. 57

:

. , ,

.

,

. , 47 . ,


8/24


2010

, .

. ,

.

,

, 34, .

, .

, .

, , .

.

, 27

.

, .

.

,

, , .

,

. .

. ;

. , . , .

; ; ,

, , ,

;

, ;

;

, .

.

, ...

; ;

, ;

;

; ,

, -

.

, ,

.

, ,

. ,

. ,

, , .

,

. ;

. ... !

*

.


9/24


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)


10/24


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.pdf


11/24


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-per


12/24


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/


13/24


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/


14/24


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


15/24


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=16478792


16/24


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.


17/24


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=16481504


18/24


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/


19/24


2010 1

on-line , (2004).

ICTs

.

.

:

1. N .2. N .3. N

.

4. N .

,

.

, :

X X X .

.

.

;

.

- (web portals)

: .

: . .

, , .

: .

,

,

.


20/24


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=3569


21/24


2010 2

social media;

Facebook

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 .. ,


22/24


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,

. ,

. ,

. 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-media


23/24


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.

Facebook

... 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=177069


24/24


e

e- Koinonia Politon

:

:

/ :

:

:

:

:. 18

10671

T/: 2103616254

www.koinoniapoliton.gr

www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr

[email protected]

-

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:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.ekoinoniapoliton.gr/http://www.koinoniapoliton.gr/

e- koinonia politon no 6

Documents