Day 7 Predictions

In the spirit of today's issues, our collective "anonymous" predictions are set out below:

Reputation Defender

First of all, congratulations to Reputation Defender for raising $8.65 million last year (announced today):

http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/reputationdefender-kleiner-bessemer-8-65-million/

Probably, Mr. Fertik will try to persuade us that Reputation Defender offers great advantages to improve our reputation (even promoted by Dr. Phil?!), and the service obviously has a lot of merit--assuming you have the ability to pay for it. It gives people a great way to remove defamatory, or potentially defamatory, content in a way where it harms nobody and helps those who it should. However, we hope that the students and guests will discuss whether these kinds of initiatives are just one bridge too far; is Reputation Defender a tool to defend or artificially improve one's reputation? (And does it matter?)

We'd also like to hear about the tactics Reputation Defender uses to increase Google page ranks (MyEdge) in a way that makes sure it doesn't get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could.

Really interesting point taken from the Tech Crunch blog linked above: "It is still early days and there is a lot of work ahead. Perhaps ReputationDefender’s biggest weakness is that it does not have a full view into Facebook, where only public comments or photos show up. If somebody is going to badmouth you online, chances are it will be on Facebook." Would be interested how they are planning to deal with this.

Anonymity

We hope our guests will not be too narrowly focused on the need to ensure accountability through identification and attribution. The democratic benefits of leaving an option open for anonymous contribution is important also, to help encourage frank speech and content. It seems to us that this would be particularly relevant in the US jurisdiction, where strong First Amendment principles are unlike what we see pretty much anywhere else in the world (which also raises the discrete sub-issue of how we can reconcile different international views of what an appropriate level of privacy protection might be). Like Dispute Finder discussed yesterday - their emphasis is not to resolve an issue in dispute, but to highlight for the public that there is a conflict, which cannot exist without vocalization of many different points of view, no matter how unpopular.

In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user's control, I think services such as Tor do quite a good job. There still are weaknesses associated with the exit nodes of Tor allowing hackers to access user names and passwords due to the lack of encryption technologies available.

In light of the well-publicized events surrounding Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning, Ebele may express Yahoo's recent concerns with anonymity and its sometimes drastic importance outside the U.S., and the difficulties of working with governments with completely different expectations that do not match with our First Amendement concerns.

Mozilla and Privacy

Besides this, Ryan and the people of Mozilla will show the great advantages of understandable privacy policies in the form of icons. This might encourage people to actually check whether the website uphold certain privacy standards. Even more importantly, it would allow users, in an easy way, to realize the diverse range of privacy policies (and amount of information released to third parties) that various add-ons have (the Location Aware feature of Firefox version 3.5, for example, can tap into a wide range of information). The advantages of easy-to-understand privacy icons are straightforward, although we might wonder whether users will have a collective voice strong enough to cause change, or whether users will really stop visiting nytimes.com if it has certain unpleasant policies. Beyond that question, the guests likely to justify why modifications to the browsers that we use are a necessary or desired way to implement them.

As we discussed yesterday, the people at the Mozilla foundation can take any idea to improve the internet from a fanciful theory to a concrete reality very quickly. It seems likely, then, that they are deluged with causes to adopt and browser functionality to build in. It would be interesting to hear how they decided what to focus on, and why privacy rose to the top of the list. Mozilla has, in effect, the ability to bundle any plug-in that its desire with Firefox by making it core browser functionality. The guests are likely to address whether there is a happy medium between bundling functionality with Firefox and relying entirely on users tracking down and installing plug-ins (like DisputeFinder requires). Is there a possibility of a central plug-in repository that can allow useful plug-ins to take off more easily? Can the decision of which plug-ins/concepts could be "promoted" to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?