Use of the Web - Report Example

Introduction The modern technology and innovations have reformed the use of the Web. Previously the scope of the web was limited, and as Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web, described it, Web 1.0 was a ‘read-only web’ (Getting 2007). This meant that users could only search for information and read it. There wasn’t any interaction between the users and it did not allow for content editing and viewer contributions. As time passed, different technological advancements converged and brought about Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is the group of technologies, which includes blogs, wikis, podcasts and RSS feeds, which enable a more socially connected web where all users can add to and edit the information space (Anderson 2007, p. 4). In comparison to Web 1.0, Web 2.0 is more interactive, allowing users to upload content, collaborate with each other and share knowledge. NESSI (Networked European Soft and Services Initiative) states that ‘Web 2.0 technologies can potentially deliver advances sharing and learning functionality based on social networks exploiting user-tagged content and overcoming individual and local limitations for knowledge’ (Chard 2008). The use of media and Web 2.0 has made everyone a consumer, audience and a producer. The portability of the devices has supported the production of digital content and the future development of the process will show significant development in the future. State Of Web 2.0 The advancements in technology have revolutionised the approach of the people. The current devices have connected the people, and this has made use of marketing easier using the Web 2.0 (Williams, & Chinn 2009, p. 167). The difference in technology is that the Web 1.0 was a limited interface which only supported collaboration using a browser and email. Web 1.0 was developed highly on the basis of published content and very little on the basis of user generated content (Cormode & Krishnamurthy 2008). In 1996, in the time of Web 1.0, there were 45 million users. The number of sites at that time was 250,000 sites. Ten years later, in 2006, Web 2.0 had more than 1 billion global users. The information on the web included mainly the published content and the significantly portion was also based on the user generated information. The components available on the web were widely read and written and there were 80,000,000 websites (Barrett 2008). The development in the web shows the evolution process of the internet which have contributed to the excessive use of the wikis and blogs (Murugesan, 2007). This signifies a combination of video, virtualization and mobility(Taringa, 2008). (Taringa, 2008) The advancement of technology and the issue found in the Web 2.0 led to the development and the making of the Web 3.0. The Web 2.0 includes all the blogs, wikis and video sharing with the advancements of the personal sharing portals (Constantinides, & Fountain, 2008). The development of the Web 3.0 includes the use of the 3D portals along with the avatar representation (Barrett, 2008). (Barrett, 2008) The key activities associated with Web 2.0 are associated with the human disposition process. This includes the playful, expressive, reflective and exploratory attributes of the human disposition. The four major services where the application of the web 2.0 is used are based on the following(TLRP, 2012): Playful: This can be done by promoting the application in the games and the virtual world Expressive: This is done through media sharing and publication which keep other informed and promote sharing of information Reflective: This is connected to the blogs, social networks and wikis Exploratory: This is relating to syndications and recommendations This is the applicative use of the web 2.0 in which the application in different dimensions can be used. Web 2.0 also represents the strong presence of collective intelligence, which is defined as a group of people carrying out a task in a group as one mind, as opposed to a group of independent people (Smith 1994, p. 1). By combining information, insight and knowledge and collaborating with one another, the information pooled together is of greater value and holds the perspectives of like-minded people. Issues Associated With Web 2.0 The issues associated with the Web 2.0 are security, resiliency, e-discovery, computer forensics, record management, data privacy and casual nature (Cunningham 2009).  The application of the Web 2.0 is very important in the organizational setup. The advancement in the technology has incorporated new tools using which the organizations are operating. All this has made communication very effective. Emerging use of the social software’s opens a new dimension of knowledge sharing within the organization. The accessibility and use of web 2.0 software’s is highly penetrating the organizational firewall. The application of Web 2.0 has created a revolution in consumerism and culture. Relevant change management and integrated project teams can be formed for the successful completion of the process (Learning Solutions Magazine, 2014). With security, the information available on the web is difficult to monitor. This affects and causes problems with securing the information that is available. The provisions for monitoring the content and securing the information from the traffic are not available on the Web 2.0. The usage of the tools available with the Web 2.0 also requires assurance that the data and the pathway of the data is secured. Resilience, otherwise known as disaster recovery, refers to information not being corrupted or lost.While service interruption is beyond the control of the organisation, specific attention will be required for monitoring the uptime and access to the information. The information will require strong attention on the process using which it is stored and the problem in the service will also impact numerous customers.In the future, these issues can be addressed through strict monitoring. The security of the data can be ensured or at least backed up by applying the cloud computing methods. E-discovery, or electronic discovery is the collecting, producing and identifying of electronically stored information for requests for production in a law suit or investigation. This includes emails, databases, social media and websites (CDS 2013). However, this is difficult without access to the storage of the media. Organisations should be aware of where their information is being stored, how it is being backed up and how it is secured, but in the web 2.0 environment, organisations may have little visibility to this information. The data available may also be lost if the storage location of the data is moved. For some of organisations, the segment of computer forensics is very important. It is a critical component which forms the e-discovery component and is responsible for managing internal investigations. Web 2.0 does not allow control and creating, storing and deleting of the information. The computer forensics method requires physical access to the storage device. The process is limited and requires examining the data which limits contamination of the evidence. With record management, many web 2.0 applications are built to allow the user to create and delete information, but it is not designed with the functionality to manage the retained information. This is problematic as the information is not categorically stored and can be hard to manage in a time of need. There are many concerns regarding data privacy, especially with personal information. While there are privacy requirements to delete any data that is not being used, any information that is stored in a cloud may be retained and shared inadvertently. Lastly, the casual nature of the business may prohibit from effective use of the system. The casual nature of the business may blur the line formed between business and personal use. Future Applications and Examples In the future the forensic examination process requires to be made better. This is so that the law can be applied and the stored data can also be safeguarded. The issues which are associated with the e-discovery are that the entire system is becoming complex over the years. The new technologies are making the data complex and the pool of information is also growing dramatically. The change in the technology is resulting in the evolving rules and regulations and the personal and professional line is blurring. The cost is unpredictable and the line is blurring. The spectrum of the law needs to be determined in the global form. All these are the issues associated with the system. This also supports the limitation of the system. E-discovery is a transactional system and hence all the issues must be resolved accordingly. The relevant examples can be extracted from the formal and informal usage of the Web 2.0. The current forensic examination process is associated with the handling of evidence. The process requires innovation and change. This is a resultant of advancing technology and requires installation of application systems. The Web 2.0 is subject to change because the landscape is evolving. For further ease of use and excess new processes can be determined (Henry, 2009). The use of different malwares and encrypted file partitions are the measures which have brought revolution in the system. Digital evidence collection process has also been initiated for the life expectancy of the project (SANS™ Institute, 2014). The process of change can be initiated through modifying the remotely logged data and archival media. Live forensic processes are also consideration of the volatile computer evidences. Other solutions include creating an image of the RAM in manner which issounder forensically. The reformations of the processes which are not alterable require newer version of the system can be designed as per the need (Cunningham, 2009). CONCLUSION The terminology 2.0 attached to the Web 2.0 signifies the changes in the web and the advancements which are enabling people to do different things. This shows that the development of the system is built using from the change in the web. The change or advancements in the methods which have been adopted previously lead to the development and utilization of various different tools. The use of the technology in a completely different spirit helps in utilizing the system. Different methods of application signify the development and advancement of the web in the different domain. This has enhanced the use of the system and has assisted in the development and making of an entirely knowledge based system. In other words, this can also be called a knowledge based system. The Web 2.0 is a collaborative setup which is used for connecting people and making information sharing easier. The entire setup is based on the fundamental of connectivity and making information sharing an easier process. In this report, all the issues associated with the Web 2.0 and advances in technology over the years have been discussed. The details of the systems and the future application of the process have been explained in the light of practical examples in this report. References Anderson, P 2007, ‘What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies, implications for education’, JISC Technology and Standards Watch, pp. 1-63. Barrett, H 2008, Web 2.0 Tools for Lifelong & Life Wide Learning, viewed 31 December 2013, . CDS 2013, The Basics: What is e-Discovery?, Complete Discovery Source, viewed 31 December 2013, . Chard, I 2008, Share, Collaborate, Exploit – Defining Mobile Web 2.0, Juniper Research, viewed 3 January 2014, Cormode, G & Krishnamurthy, B 2008, ‘Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0’, First Monday, vol. 13, no. 6. Cunningham, P 2009, Web 2.0: Issues & Risks, viewed 31 December 2013, Information Management, . Getting, B 2007, Basic Definitions: Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Practical Ecommerce, viewed 3 January 2013, . Henry, P 2009, Best Practices In Digital Evidence Collection, SANS™ Institute, viewed 3 January 2014, < http://computer-forensics.sans.org/blog/2009/09/12/best-practices-in-digital-evidence-collection/> Learning Solutions Magazine 2014, Change 2.0: How Does E-Learning 2.0 Affect Organizational Culture?, viewed 3 January 2014, < http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/86/change-20-how-does-e-learning-20-affect-organizational-culture/page2> SANS™ Institute 2014, SANS Investigate Forensic Toolkit (SIFT) Workstation Version 2.14, viewed 3 January 2014, < http://computer-forensics.sans.org/community/downloads> Smith, JB 1994, Collective Intelligence in Computer-Based Collaboration, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. TLRP 2012, Education 2.0? Designing the web for teaching and learning, Technology Enhanced Learning, viewed 31 December 2013, . Williams, J & Chinn, S J 2009, ‘Using Web 2.0 to support the active learning experience’, Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 165-174. Taringa 2008, Evolution Of The Internet, Taringa, viewed 31 December 2013, . Cooke, M & Buckley, N 2008, ‘Web 2.0, social networks and the future of market research’, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 267-292. Constantinides, E., & Fountain, S. J. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 231-244. Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT professional, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 34-41. Read More