<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Elisabeth</id>
	<title>Cyberlaw: Difficult Issues Winter 2010 - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Elisabeth"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Special:Contributions/Elisabeth"/>
	<updated>2026-04-22T06:30:13Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.6</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=824</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=824"/>
		<updated>2010-01-15T18:42:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and Elizabeth Stark, co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this wiki, this class maintains a [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/difficultprobs/ blog] and [http://twitter.com/DifficultProbs twitter feed]. Check them out!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]].  For admins looking for details on field trips, please visit [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/Main_Page#Field_Trip_Logistic here].  All regular class meetings will be at &#039;&#039;&#039;Stanford Law School Classroom 280B&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This [http://www.law.stanford.edu/contact/#maps map site] has a map of the [http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ca/bayarea Bay Area], [http://ucomm.stanford.edu/map/ Stanford campus], and [http://transportation.stanford.edu/images/visitor-bus.pdf visitor parking] at Stanford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The four main difficult problems to be addressed are: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Network Initiative]] ([[GNI Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]]  ([[Ubicomp Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Cybersecurity]] ([[Cybersecurity Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cross-cutting themes include: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The role of intermediaries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Motivating good and bad actors]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collaborating and relying on masses]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Group presentation schedule:&lt;br /&gt;
*Friday, Jan. 15th: Ubiquitous Human Computing&lt;br /&gt;
*Tuesday, Jan. 19th: Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
*Wednesday, Jan. 20th: Global Network Initiative&lt;br /&gt;
*Thursday, Jan. 21st: Future of Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 4th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LUNCH&#039;&#039;&#039;: 12-2pm SLS, Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:Student introductions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:A brief overview of the course, its goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.  &lt;br /&gt;
:A quiz on Zittrain&#039;s book, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; will be given. &lt;br /&gt;
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings For Class&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Read &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Initiative] website&lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignments&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 2 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 1 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 5th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CYBERSECURITY BACKGROUND: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 2-4pm SLS Room 280B &lt;br /&gt;
: Professor Zittrain will interview Professor [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=559 Jack Goldsmith] as an overview of cybersecurity as it has evolved and as it can potentially be addressed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;Bonus Writing Opportunity&#039;&#039;: produce a summary of the cybersecurity event, to be used as background reading for Thursday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests:&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
*Mark Chandler, CISCO&lt;br /&gt;
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft&lt;br /&gt;
*Dunstan Hope, BSR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings:&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Rhys Blakely, &#039;&#039;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;TimesOnline&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Feb. 9, 2006. &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Colin Maclay, &amp;quot;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online],&amp;quot; &#039;&#039;in&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Access Controlled&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]&lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Ubiquitous_Human_Computing UbiComp Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignments&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 3 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 2 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 6th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to cybersecurity. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]&lt;br /&gt;
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]&lt;br /&gt;
*Aaron Koblin, see his [http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work.html Ten Thousand Cents and Sheep Market projects]&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://www.mturk.com/ Mechanical Turk], [http://www.liveops.com/ LiveOps], [http://www.crowdflower.com CrowdFlower] or other human computing site&lt;br /&gt;
**Watch the [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2167086 12-minute video] of Lukas&#039; CrowdFlower presentation at TechCrunch&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim Nancy R. Mansfield, &#039;&#039;[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;American Business Law Journal&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
*Kate Thomas, &#039;&#039;[http://www.seiu.org/2009/12/insurers-hire-mafia-to-spam-congress.php Insurers Hire Mafia to Spam Congress]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;SEIU.org Blog&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Dec. 10, 2009. &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]&#039;&#039;, SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008). &lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 4 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 3 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 7th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions?  How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?&lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].&lt;br /&gt;
*Col. Allen &amp;amp; Lt. Col Demchak, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Military Review&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2003). &lt;br /&gt;
*Kim Zetter, &#039;&#039;[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet&#039;s Biggest Security Hole]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wired&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2008). &lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 3&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim CENTRA Technology, [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Cyber Compendium] Workshop, Nov. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near &amp;amp; Mid-Term Action Plans.&lt;br /&gt;
*Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Future_of_Wikipedia Future of Wikipedia] wiki background paper&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 5 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 4 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Friday, January 8th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 10:30 am eBay office visit (shuttle from SLS), including JZ talk and meeting with eBay lawyers and security experts&lt;br /&gt;
*If you&#039;re unable to attend, you might want to watch JZ&#039;s [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo Minds for Sale talk].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 3:00-5:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 3:30pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model?  and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?&lt;br /&gt;
:Brief introduction of next week&#039;s cross-cutting themes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member&lt;br /&gt;
*Mike Godwin, Wikimedia General Counsel&lt;br /&gt;
*Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia volunteer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 6&lt;br /&gt;
*Peruse Wikipedia&#039;s [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]&lt;br /&gt;
*Strona, &#039;&#039;[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia&#039;s Soul]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Economist&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, March 6, 2008. &lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Inside Higher Ed&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Jan. 26, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wall Street Journal&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/ New editors are joining English Wikipedia in droves?]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Infodisiac&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Dec. 6, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 6 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 5 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;EVENING EVENT: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Cocktails and hors d&#039;oeuvres at David Hornik&#039;s office in Palo Alto after class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Saturday, January 9th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details TBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 11th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:50pm&lt;br /&gt;
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied? Change the technology, save the world. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]&lt;br /&gt;
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]&lt;br /&gt;
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NggzBHSXdCo Video explanation of Herdict] (student suggested)&lt;br /&gt;
*Zittrain&#039;s [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [https://www.new.net/ New.net]&lt;br /&gt;
**How can .church domain names exist when it does not exist? Look at the new.net domain decoder&lt;br /&gt;
**Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains List of Internet Domains]&lt;br /&gt;
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, &#039;&#039;[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf  Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]&#039;&#039;, 32 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Harvard Journal of Law &amp;amp; Gender&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 383 (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 7 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 6 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 12th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WORKSHOP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 1-2pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]&lt;br /&gt;
Hosted by Carl Malamud &lt;br /&gt;
:Some students attend the entire workshop, 10am-3pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online? Consider the Drumbeat privacy project and creative commons issues. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to the cross-cutting theme of due process and dispute resolution on the internet. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow&lt;br /&gt;
*Ebele Okobi-Harris, Yahoo! Director of Business and Human Rights&lt;br /&gt;
*Mark Surman, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
*Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender&lt;br /&gt;
*Carl Malamud&lt;br /&gt;
*Julie Martin, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
*Aza Raskin, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons] for discussion&lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 9 on Data Genealogy&lt;br /&gt;
*Odia Kagan, &#039;&#039;[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&amp;amp;id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Int&#039;l Business Law Services&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, November 26, 2007. &lt;br /&gt;
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat privacy icon challenge] backgrounder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Additional Materials&#039;&#039; (suggested by student):&lt;br /&gt;
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ Message from Anonymous to the Church of Scientology];&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 Wikipedia&#039;s article about Anonymous Group];&lt;br /&gt;
*Read about (and use!) [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 8 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 7 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 13th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:How do our due process concerns translate to the internet and online communities? Should due process exist on the internet? Is the internet public or private space and under what terms do we have the privilege or right to access?  &lt;br /&gt;
:Consider, for example, how much due process should be required to remove an account from Facebook, Google or Twitter. How much due process is necessary for a take-down on YouTube and what right of appeal do you have in any of these circumstances?&lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to online collaboration and group motivation strategies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Kim Scott, Google &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Skim Elizabeth Thornburg, &#039;&#039;[http://faculty.smu.edu/ethornbu/Thornburg%20Macro.doc Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution]&#039;&#039;, 34 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Univ. Cal. Davis&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 151 (2000). &lt;br /&gt;
* Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service (see the primer above)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recall Zittrain, Chapter 7, on [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/18#48 Private Sheriffs]&lt;br /&gt;
* Terri Wells, &#039;&#039;[http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Beware-the-Google-Death-Penalty/ Beware the Google &#039;Death Penalty&#039;]&#039;&#039;,&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Search Engine News&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2006).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 9 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 8 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 14th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Online collaboration projects require internet organizations to motivate and coordinate large groups of people.  This requires both motivating good actors to participate and motivating bad actors either to not participate or to conform to the rules/standards of the site.  How can website hosts face these challenges? How involved should the users of cooperatively developed sites be in their governments?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Daniel Hoffer, [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing]&lt;br /&gt;
*Micah Schaffer&lt;br /&gt;
*Dan Scholnick, [http://www.trinityventures.com/venture-capital-team/bio.php?first-name=Dan&amp;amp;last-name=Scholnick Trinity Ventures]&lt;br /&gt;
*Ben Rigby, [http://beextra.org The Extraordinaries]&lt;br /&gt;
*Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*F. Gino, Jun Gu, &amp;amp; Chen-Bo Zhong, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Contagion or Restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior]&#039;&#039;, 45 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. Experimental Social Psychology&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 1299-1302 (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ OpenCouchSurfing.org] posts and complaints&lt;br /&gt;
*Review readings from Friday, January 8th on Wikipedia and motivation of contributors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 9 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS SOCIAL&#039;&#039;&#039;: Bonus, evening, details TBD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Friday, January 15th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 1:00-3:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 1:30pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Ubiquitous Human Computing presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Fabio Rosati, Elance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjEzZnFyeG54ZG4&amp;amp;hl=en Technical solutions ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjEzZnFyeG54ZG4&amp;amp;hl=en Best practices ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 18th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;NO CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 19th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Reputation Defender, 1pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Google, 3pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B or Google (TBC), guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Cybersecurity presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Mitchell Baker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 20th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;:&#039;&#039;&#039; Facebook, 12:30-2pm (TBC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Global Network Initiative presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 21st&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Future of Wikipedia presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Craig Newmark &lt;br /&gt;
*Edward Wes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WRAP-UP DINNER&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Student Lounge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;January 31st&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FINAL PROJECTS DUE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=823</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=823"/>
		<updated>2010-01-15T18:41:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and Elizabeth Stark, co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this wiki, this class maintains a [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/difficultprobs/ blog] and [http://twitter.com/DifficultProbs twitter feed]. Check them out!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]].  For admins looking for details on field trips, please visit [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/Main_Page#Field_Trip_Logistic here].  All regular class meetings will be at &#039;&#039;&#039;Stanford Law School Classroom 280B&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This [http://www.law.stanford.edu/contact/#maps map site] has a map of the [http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ca/bayarea Bay Area], [http://ucomm.stanford.edu/map/ Stanford campus], and [http://transportation.stanford.edu/images/visitor-bus.pdf visitor parking] at Stanford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The four main difficult problems to be addressed are: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Network Initiative]] ([[GNI Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]]  ([[Ubicomp Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Cybersecurity]] ([[Cybersecurity Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cross-cutting themes include: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The role of intermediaries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Motivating good and bad actors]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collaborating and relying on masses]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Group presentation schedule:&lt;br /&gt;
*Friday, Jan. 15th: Ubiquitous Human Computing&lt;br /&gt;
*Tuesday, Jan. 19th: Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
*Wednesday, Jan. 20th: Global Network Initiative&lt;br /&gt;
*Thursday, Jan. 21st: Future of Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 4th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LUNCH&#039;&#039;&#039;: 12-2pm SLS, Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:Student introductions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:A brief overview of the course, its goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.  &lt;br /&gt;
:A quiz on Zittrain&#039;s book, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; will be given. &lt;br /&gt;
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings For Class&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Read &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Initiative] website&lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignments&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 2 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 1 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 5th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CYBERSECURITY BACKGROUND: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 2-4pm SLS Room 280B &lt;br /&gt;
: Professor Zittrain will interview Professor [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=559 Jack Goldsmith] as an overview of cybersecurity as it has evolved and as it can potentially be addressed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;Bonus Writing Opportunity&#039;&#039;: produce a summary of the cybersecurity event, to be used as background reading for Thursday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests:&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
*Mark Chandler, CISCO&lt;br /&gt;
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft&lt;br /&gt;
*Dunstan Hope, BSR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings:&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Rhys Blakely, &#039;&#039;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;TimesOnline&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Feb. 9, 2006. &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Colin Maclay, &amp;quot;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online],&amp;quot; &#039;&#039;in&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Access Controlled&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]&lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Ubiquitous_Human_Computing UbiComp Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignments&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 3 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 2 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 6th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to cybersecurity. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]&lt;br /&gt;
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]&lt;br /&gt;
*Aaron Koblin, see his [http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work.html Ten Thousand Cents and Sheep Market projects]&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://www.mturk.com/ Mechanical Turk], [http://www.liveops.com/ LiveOps], [http://www.crowdflower.com CrowdFlower] or other human computing site&lt;br /&gt;
**Watch the [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2167086 12-minute video] of Lukas&#039; CrowdFlower presentation at TechCrunch&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim Nancy R. Mansfield, &#039;&#039;[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;American Business Law Journal&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
*Kate Thomas, &#039;&#039;[http://www.seiu.org/2009/12/insurers-hire-mafia-to-spam-congress.php Insurers Hire Mafia to Spam Congress]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;SEIU.org Blog&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Dec. 10, 2009. &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]&#039;&#039;, SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008). &lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 4 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 3 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 7th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions?  How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?&lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].&lt;br /&gt;
*Col. Allen &amp;amp; Lt. Col Demchak, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Military Review&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2003). &lt;br /&gt;
*Kim Zetter, &#039;&#039;[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet&#039;s Biggest Security Hole]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wired&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2008). &lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 3&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim CENTRA Technology, [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Cyber Compendium] Workshop, Nov. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near &amp;amp; Mid-Term Action Plans.&lt;br /&gt;
*Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Future_of_Wikipedia Future of Wikipedia] wiki background paper&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 5 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 4 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Friday, January 8th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 10:30 am eBay office visit (shuttle from SLS), including JZ talk and meeting with eBay lawyers and security experts&lt;br /&gt;
*If you&#039;re unable to attend, you might want to watch JZ&#039;s [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo Minds for Sale talk].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 3:00-5:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 3:30pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model?  and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?&lt;br /&gt;
:Brief introduction of next week&#039;s cross-cutting themes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member&lt;br /&gt;
*Mike Godwin, Wikimedia General Counsel&lt;br /&gt;
*Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia volunteer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 6&lt;br /&gt;
*Peruse Wikipedia&#039;s [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]&lt;br /&gt;
*Strona, &#039;&#039;[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia&#039;s Soul]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Economist&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, March 6, 2008. &lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Inside Higher Ed&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Jan. 26, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wall Street Journal&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/ New editors are joining English Wikipedia in droves?]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Infodisiac&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Dec. 6, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 6 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 5 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;EVENING EVENT: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Cocktails and hors d&#039;oeuvres at David Hornik&#039;s office in Palo Alto after class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Saturday, January 9th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details TBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 11th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:50pm&lt;br /&gt;
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied? Change the technology, save the world. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]&lt;br /&gt;
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]&lt;br /&gt;
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NggzBHSXdCo Video explanation of Herdict] (student suggested)&lt;br /&gt;
*Zittrain&#039;s [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [https://www.new.net/ New.net]&lt;br /&gt;
**How can .church domain names exist when it does not exist? Look at the new.net domain decoder&lt;br /&gt;
**Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains List of Internet Domains]&lt;br /&gt;
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, &#039;&#039;[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf  Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]&#039;&#039;, 32 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Harvard Journal of Law &amp;amp; Gender&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 383 (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 7 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 6 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 12th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WORKSHOP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 1-2pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]&lt;br /&gt;
Hosted by Carl Malamud &lt;br /&gt;
:Some students attend the entire workshop, 10am-3pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online? Consider the Drumbeat privacy project and creative commons issues. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to the cross-cutting theme of due process and dispute resolution on the internet. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow&lt;br /&gt;
*Ebele Okobi-Harris, Yahoo! Director of Business and Human Rights&lt;br /&gt;
*Mark Surman, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
*Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender&lt;br /&gt;
*Carl Malamud&lt;br /&gt;
*Julie Martin, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
*Aza Raskin, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons] for discussion&lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 9 on Data Genealogy&lt;br /&gt;
*Odia Kagan, &#039;&#039;[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&amp;amp;id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Int&#039;l Business Law Services&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, November 26, 2007. &lt;br /&gt;
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat privacy icon challenge] backgrounder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Additional Materials&#039;&#039; (suggested by student):&lt;br /&gt;
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ Message from Anonymous to the Church of Scientology];&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 Wikipedia&#039;s article about Anonymous Group];&lt;br /&gt;
*Read about (and use!) [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 8 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 7 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 13th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:How do our due process concerns translate to the internet and online communities? Should due process exist on the internet? Is the internet public or private space and under what terms do we have the privilege or right to access?  &lt;br /&gt;
:Consider, for example, how much due process should be required to remove an account from Facebook, Google or Twitter. How much due process is necessary for a take-down on YouTube and what right of appeal do you have in any of these circumstances?&lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to online collaboration and group motivation strategies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Kim Scott, Google &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Skim Elizabeth Thornburg, &#039;&#039;[http://faculty.smu.edu/ethornbu/Thornburg%20Macro.doc Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution]&#039;&#039;, 34 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Univ. Cal. Davis&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 151 (2000). &lt;br /&gt;
* Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service (see the primer above)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recall Zittrain, Chapter 7, on [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/18#48 Private Sheriffs]&lt;br /&gt;
* Terri Wells, &#039;&#039;[http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Beware-the-Google-Death-Penalty/ Beware the Google &#039;Death Penalty&#039;]&#039;&#039;,&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Search Engine News&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2006).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 9 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 8 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 14th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Online collaboration projects require internet organizations to motivate and coordinate large groups of people.  This requires both motivating good actors to participate and motivating bad actors either to not participate or to conform to the rules/standards of the site.  How can website hosts face these challenges? How involved should the users of cooperatively developed sites be in their governments?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Daniel Hoffer, [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing]&lt;br /&gt;
*Micah Schaffer&lt;br /&gt;
*Dan Scholnick, [http://www.trinityventures.com/venture-capital-team/bio.php?first-name=Dan&amp;amp;last-name=Scholnick Trinity Ventures]&lt;br /&gt;
*Ben Rigby, [http://beextra.org The Extraordinaries]&lt;br /&gt;
*Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*F. Gino, Jun Gu, &amp;amp; Chen-Bo Zhong, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Contagion or Restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior]&#039;&#039;, 45 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. Experimental Social Psychology&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 1299-1302 (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ OpenCouchSurfing.org] posts and complaints&lt;br /&gt;
*Review readings from Friday, January 8th on Wikipedia and motivation of contributors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 9 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS SOCIAL&#039;&#039;&#039;: Bonus, evening, details TBD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Friday, January 15th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 1:00-3:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 1:30pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Ubiquitous Human Computing presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Fabio Rosati, Elance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjEzZnFyeG54ZG4&amp;amp;hl=en Technical solutions ]&lt;br /&gt;
[http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjEzZnFyeG54ZG4&amp;amp;hl=en Best practices ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 18th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;NO CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 19th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Reputation Defender, 1pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Google, 3pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B or Google (TBC), guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Cybersecurity presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Mitchell Baker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 20th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;:&#039;&#039;&#039; Facebook, 12:30-2pm (TBC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Global Network Initiative presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 21st&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Future of Wikipedia presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Craig Newmark &lt;br /&gt;
*Edward Wes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WRAP-UP DINNER&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Student Lounge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;January 31st&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FINAL PROJECTS DUE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=822</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=822"/>
		<updated>2010-01-15T18:38:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Welcome to Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw, a January course taught by Professor Jonathan Zittrain and Elizabeth Stark, co-hosted by Stanford Law School and Harvard Law School. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to this wiki, this class maintains a [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/difficultprobs/ blog] and [http://twitter.com/DifficultProbs twitter feed]. Check them out!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you are a student, please see the [[Student Responsibilities]] section and [[Course Logistics]].  For admins looking for details on field trips, please visit [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/difficultproblems/Main_Page#Field_Trip_Logistic here].  All regular class meetings will be at &#039;&#039;&#039;Stanford Law School Classroom 280B&#039;&#039;&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This [http://www.law.stanford.edu/contact/#maps map site] has a map of the [http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ca/bayarea Bay Area], [http://ucomm.stanford.edu/map/ Stanford campus], and [http://transportation.stanford.edu/images/visitor-bus.pdf visitor parking] at Stanford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The four main difficult problems to be addressed are: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Network Initiative]] ([[GNI Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ubiquitous Human Computing]]  ([[Ubicomp Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Future of Wikipedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Cybersecurity]] ([[Cybersecurity Brainstorming |Group Page]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cross-cutting themes include: &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The role of intermediaries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Motivating good and bad actors]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collaborating and relying on masses]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Privacy and Anonymity on the Internet]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Group presentation schedule:&lt;br /&gt;
*Friday, Jan. 15th: Ubiquitous Human Computing&lt;br /&gt;
*Tuesday, Jan. 19th: Cybersecurity&lt;br /&gt;
*Wednesday, Jan. 20th: Global Network Initiative&lt;br /&gt;
*Thursday, Jan. 21st: Future of Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK ONE: DEFINING THE PROBLEMS==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 4th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;LUNCH&#039;&#039;&#039;: 12-2pm SLS, Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:Student introductions&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:A brief overview of the course, its goals and expectations, including an introduction to the difficult problems and the cross-cutting themes.  &lt;br /&gt;
:A quiz on Zittrain&#039;s book, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; will be given. &lt;br /&gt;
:Brief introduction to the Global Network Initiative&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings For Class&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Read &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Explore the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ Global Network Initiative] website&lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/GNI GNI Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignments&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 2 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 1 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 5th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CYBERSECURITY BACKGROUND: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 2-4pm SLS Room 280B &lt;br /&gt;
: Professor Zittrain will interview Professor [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=559 Jack Goldsmith] as an overview of cybersecurity as it has evolved and as it can potentially be addressed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;Bonus Writing Opportunity&#039;&#039;: produce a summary of the cybersecurity event, to be used as background reading for Thursday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B&lt;br /&gt;
:Identify the first-order problems regarding corporate responsibility and free expression on the internet. Examine how GNI attempts to address these problems and then evaluate whether GNI is a success and whether better approaches could be taken. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to ubiquitous human computing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests:&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
*Mark Chandler, CISCO&lt;br /&gt;
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft&lt;br /&gt;
*Dunstan Hope, BSR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings:&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Rhys Blakely, &#039;&#039;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece Yahoo in second Chinese blog Row],&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;TimesOnline&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Feb. 9, 2006. &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Colin Maclay, &amp;quot;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/maclay-access-controlled-pdf Protecting Privacy and Expression Online],&amp;quot; &#039;&#039;in&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Access Controlled&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (Ronald Diebert et al., eds., MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2010).&lt;br /&gt;
*Read GNI [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/cms/uploads/1/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf Guiding Principles]&lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Ubiquitous_Human_Computing UbiComp Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignments&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 3 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 2 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 6th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Examine the nature of ubiquitous human computing and potential future applications of human computing and the dangers. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to cybersecurity. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Lukas Biewald, [http://crowdflower.com/ CrowdFlower]&lt;br /&gt;
*Bjoern Hartman, see his [http://bjoern.org/projects/catbook/ Mechanical Turk Cats Book]&lt;br /&gt;
*Aaron Koblin, see his [http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work.html Ten Thousand Cents and Sheep Market projects]&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://www.mturk.com/ Mechanical Turk], [http://www.liveops.com/ LiveOps], [http://www.crowdflower.com CrowdFlower] or other human computing site&lt;br /&gt;
**Watch the [http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2167086 12-minute video] of Lukas&#039; CrowdFlower presentation at TechCrunch&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim Nancy R. Mansfield, &#039;&#039;[http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/618188-1.html The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: an analysis of the cyberspace workplace]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;American Business Law Journal&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
*Kate Thomas, &#039;&#039;[http://www.seiu.org/2009/12/insurers-hire-mafia-to-spam-congress.php Insurers Hire Mafia to Spam Congress]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;SEIU.org Blog&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Dec. 10, 2009. &lt;br /&gt;
*Read Jonathan Zittrain, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10/asset/ssrn-id1140445-pdf Ubiquitous Human Computing]&#039;&#039;, SSRN Paper No 32/2008 (July 2008). &lt;br /&gt;
*Read the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Wiki Primer]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;ASSIGNMENT: Due -- Email Admin with Problem Topic Choice&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 4 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 3 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 7th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions?  How should government, military, businesses, and internet/tech approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?&lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to Future of Wikipedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Chuck Cosson, Microsoft&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Listen to David Clark, [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 The Internets We Did Not Build].&lt;br /&gt;
*Col. Allen &amp;amp; Lt. Col Demchak, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Military Review&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2003). &lt;br /&gt;
*Kim Zetter, &#039;&#039;[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/revealed-the-in/ Revealed: The Internet&#039;s Biggest Security Hole]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wired&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2008). &lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 3&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim CENTRA Technology, [http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Cyber Compendium] Workshop, Nov. 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim the White House [http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf Cyberspace Policy Review] (2009); focus on the introduction/overview and the Near &amp;amp; Mid-Term Action Plans.&lt;br /&gt;
*Read [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Future_of_Wikipedia Future of Wikipedia] wiki background paper&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 5 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 4 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Friday, January 8th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 10:30 am eBay office visit (shuttle from SLS), including JZ talk and meeting with eBay lawyers and security experts&lt;br /&gt;
*If you&#039;re unable to attend, you might want to watch JZ&#039;s [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3h-rae3uo Minds for Sale talk].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 3:00-5:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 3:30pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Wikipedia has grown quickly and rapidly to become one of if not the largest online content-generating collaboration. Following the 2009 Wikimania, Wikimedia has undertaken a self-review, looking at strategies for the future of Wikipedia. Is it a sustainable model?  and if so, to what other fields is it applicable? How can its reception in academia be improved? and what are its applications for education?&lt;br /&gt;
:Brief introduction of next week&#039;s cross-cutting themes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member&lt;br /&gt;
*Mike Godwin, Wikimedia General Counsel&lt;br /&gt;
*Phoebe Ayers, Wikimedia volunteer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 6&lt;br /&gt;
*Peruse Wikipedia&#039;s [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Strategy Page]&lt;br /&gt;
*Strona, &#039;&#039;[http://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/~kwasnicki/EkonLit6/WikipediaSoul.pdf The Battle for Wikipedia&#039;s Soul]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;The Economist&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, March 6, 2008. &lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki A Stand Against Wikipedia?]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Inside Higher Ed&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Jan. 26, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ Wikipedia Watch] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia]&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/11/23/wsj-volunteers-log-off-as-wikipedia-ages/ Wikipedia Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Wall Street Journal&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;[http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/12/new-editors-are-joining-english-wikipedia-in-droves/ New editors are joining English Wikipedia in droves?]&#039;&#039;, &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Infodisiac&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, Dec. 6, 2009.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 6 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 5 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;EVENING EVENT: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Cocktails and hors d&#039;oeuvres at David Hornik&#039;s office in Palo Alto after class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Saturday, January 9th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tour of San Francisco (Optional); details TBD. To give input and suggestions, visit [[Tour Ideas]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK TWO: CROSS-CUTTING THEMES==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 11th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:50pm&lt;br /&gt;
:One potential way to address some of the problems addressed in this course is through innovations and technological solutions. Several solutions have changed the way our browsers work and thereby changed the way we interact with the internet, making life better. In what other areas could a similar approach be applied? Change the technology, save the world. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to cross-cutting theme of privacy, anonymity and liability on the internet&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*John M. Agosta, [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder]&lt;br /&gt;
*Tye Rattenbury, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
*Rob Ennals, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
*Tad Hersch, DisputeFinder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://www.herdict.org/web/ HerdictWeb]&lt;br /&gt;
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NggzBHSXdCo Video explanation of Herdict] (student suggested)&lt;br /&gt;
*Zittrain&#039;s [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/02/10/berkman-jz-on-herdict/ Comments on Herdict] at a Berkman Center Lunch&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] (Test it out!)&lt;br /&gt;
*Visit [https://www.new.net/ New.net]&lt;br /&gt;
**How can .church domain names exist when it does not exist? Look at the new.net domain decoder&lt;br /&gt;
**Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains List of Internet Domains]&lt;br /&gt;
*Read Introduction to Ann Bartow, &#039;&#039;[http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf  Internet Defamation As Profit Center: The Monetization of Online Harrassment]&#039;&#039;, 32 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Harvard Journal of Law &amp;amp; Gender&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 383 (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 7 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 6 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 12th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WORKSHOP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: 1-2pm Faculty Lounge, Stanford [http://public.resource.org/law.gov/ law.gov workshop]&lt;br /&gt;
Hosted by Carl Malamud &lt;br /&gt;
:Some students attend the entire workshop, 10am-3pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Privacy and anonymity can raise significant issues for accountability for online actions. Users often believe they are more anonymous than they truly are online - how can we better educate the public about the reality of privacy online? Consider the Drumbeat privacy project and creative commons issues. &lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to the cross-cutting theme of due process and dispute resolution on the internet. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Ryan Calo, SLS Fellow&lt;br /&gt;
*Ebele Okobi-Harris, Yahoo! Director of Business and Human Rights&lt;br /&gt;
*Mark Surman, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
*Michael Fertik, Reputation Defender&lt;br /&gt;
*Carl Malamud&lt;br /&gt;
*Julie Martin, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
*Aza Raskin, Mozilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons] for discussion&lt;br /&gt;
*Review &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;; Chapter 9 on Data Genealogy&lt;br /&gt;
*Odia Kagan, &#039;&#039;[http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&amp;amp;id=1915 Fighting Anonymous Defamation],&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Int&#039;l Business Law Services&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;, November 26, 2007. &lt;br /&gt;
*Consider commercial applications; visit [http://www.reputationdefender.com/ ReputationDefender]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Drumbeat/Challenges/Privacy_Icons Drumbeat privacy icon challenge] backgrounder&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Additional Materials&#039;&#039; (suggested by student):&lt;br /&gt;
*Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ Message from Anonymous to the Church of Scientology];&lt;br /&gt;
*Skim [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 Wikipedia&#039;s article about Anonymous Group];&lt;br /&gt;
*Read about (and use!) [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 8 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 7 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 13th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:How do our due process concerns translate to the internet and online communities? Should due process exist on the internet? Is the internet public or private space and under what terms do we have the privilege or right to access?  &lt;br /&gt;
:Consider, for example, how much due process should be required to remove an account from Facebook, Google or Twitter. How much due process is necessary for a take-down on YouTube and what right of appeal do you have in any of these circumstances?&lt;br /&gt;
:Introduction to online collaboration and group motivation strategies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Kim Scott, Google &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Skim Elizabeth Thornburg, &#039;&#039;[http://faculty.smu.edu/ethornbu/Thornburg%20Macro.doc Going Private: Technology, Due Process, and Internet Dispute Resolution]&#039;&#039;, 34 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Univ. Cal. Davis&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 151 (2000). &lt;br /&gt;
* Read through the Facebook or Google terms of service (see the primer above)&lt;br /&gt;
* Recall Zittrain, Chapter 7, on [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/18#48 Private Sheriffs]&lt;br /&gt;
* Terri Wells, &#039;&#039;[http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Beware-the-Google-Death-Penalty/ Beware the Google &#039;Death Penalty&#039;]&#039;&#039;,&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Search Engine News&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; (2006).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Assignment&#039;&#039;: Before next class, post [[Day 9 Predictions]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 8 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 14th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Online collaboration projects require internet organizations to motivate and coordinate large groups of people.  This requires both motivating good actors to participate and motivating bad actors either to not participate or to conform to the rules/standards of the site.  How can website hosts face these challenges? How involved should the users of cooperatively developed sites be in their governments?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Daniel Hoffer, [http://www.couchsurfing.org/ Couchsurfing]&lt;br /&gt;
*Micah Schaffer&lt;br /&gt;
*Dan Scholnick, [http://www.trinityventures.com/venture-capital-team/bio.php?first-name=Dan&amp;amp;last-name=Scholnick Trinity Ventures]&lt;br /&gt;
*Ben Rigby, [http://beextra.org The Extraordinaries]&lt;br /&gt;
*Stuart West, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Readings&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*F. Gino, Jun Gu, &amp;amp; Chen-Bo Zhong, &#039;&#039;[http://drop.io/cyberlaw_winter10 Contagion or Restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior]&#039;&#039;, 45 &amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;font-variant:small-caps&amp;quot;&amp;gt;J. Experimental Social Psychology&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 1299-1302 (2009).&lt;br /&gt;
*Browse [http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/ OpenCouchSurfing.org] posts and complaints&lt;br /&gt;
*Review readings from Friday, January 8th on Wikipedia and motivation of contributors&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Thoughts after class&#039;&#039;: [[Day 9 Thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS SOCIAL&#039;&#039;&#039;: Bonus, evening, details TBD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Friday, January 15th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 1:00-3:00pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 1:30pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Ubiquitous Human Computing presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Fabio Rosati, Elance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[Technical solutions http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjEzZnFyeG54ZG4&amp;amp;hl=en]&lt;br /&gt;
[Best practices http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVl_o5lQOXEqZGMzejN4OG5fMjEzZnFyeG54ZG4&amp;amp;hl=en]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==WEEK THREE: SOLUTIONS==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Monday, January 18th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;NO CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Tuesday, January 19th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Reputation Defender, 1pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;: Google, 3pm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 5:15-7:15pm SLS Room 280B or Google (TBC), guests to begin arriving at 5:45pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Cybersecurity presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Mitchell Baker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Wednesday, January 20th&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FIELD TRIP: &#039;&#039;BONUS&#039;&#039;:&#039;&#039;&#039; Facebook, 12:30-2pm (TBC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 6:30-8:30pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 7:00pm&lt;br /&gt;
:Global Network Initiative presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;Thursday, January 21st&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;CLASS&#039;&#039;&#039;: 11:10am-1:10pm SLS Room 280B, guests to begin arriving at 11:40am&lt;br /&gt;
:Future of Wikipedia presentation (60 min)&lt;br /&gt;
:Discussion of solution&#039;s strengths and weaknesses and other approaches to consider&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;Guests&#039;&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
*Craig Newmark &lt;br /&gt;
*Edward Wes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;WRAP-UP DINNER&#039;&#039;&#039;: 7:20-9:20pm SLS Student Lounge&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &#039;&#039;&#039;January 31st&#039;&#039;&#039; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;FINAL PROJECTS DUE&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&amp;diff=742</id>
		<title>Day 8 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&amp;diff=742"/>
		<updated>2010-01-14T01:57:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;For those who aren&#039;t familiar, here are [http://creativecommons.org/dmca/ Creative Commons&#039;] and [http://www.google.com/dmca.html Google&#039;s] explanations of DMCA Notice and Takedown Procedures, one example of Due Process online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Should there be Due Process Online==&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like there should be, though we can&#039;t predict where the folks from Google believe it should come from. On the one hand, you might think that Google is &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; a company, and their due process obligations are not greater than those of any other private entity who effects your life: i.e. send a letter to the complaint department and pray. At the entire other end of the spectrum, you might think that Google is such a critical point-of-control online that the government should have no problem regulating them in areas from copyright to even their handling of search results and their imposition of the death penalty. My guess is that Google believes itself to be in the former, &amp;quot;leave-us-alone&amp;quot; pile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thought is that due process is important in the legal system because nobody has a choice about whether they are subjected to its processes. However, the market may incentivize a proper balance of due process from online service providers. For example, if the Google death penalty becomes so pervasive that the search results are no longer relevant enough for users, or if unfairness generates enough badwill that users will switch to a different search engine, Google may be incentivized to offer different processes. In reality, Google&#039;s status as an incumbent would make these factors unlikely to affect Google&#039;s decision making but it is possible that they could have effect in less mature fields with more competitors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&#039;s great how the website with the article on the Google death penalty was filled with mostly internal links, which seems to be intended to raise its Google rank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it is, Google and other service providers like facebook are a black box.  In the Death Penalty article it seemed that a site could be given the death penalty without even knowing it had done something wrong; theoretically a company could set up spam that attempts to increase the page rank of a competitor with the intention it gets the Google Death Penalty. Moreover, some non-malicious actors whose sites are infected with malware can be dramatically hurt by the Google StopBadware partnership; they might claim they&#039;ve been punished without Due Process, but Google&#039;s courterargument that they&#039;re helping to increase web safety is compelling.  In light of the complexity of the issues and the spectrum of people whose lives and businesses Google can affect, clearer guidelines are needed and more open and transparent procedures for resolving cases. &lt;br /&gt;
:Our guest, however, might point out that spammers are infinitely creative, and trying to set up rules in advance to deal with every possible situation is just inviting people of ill-will to take advantage of Google.  Thus, it might be argued that the company should have every right to optimize its product for the vast majority of non-malicious users around the word.  For those reasons, along with the additional burdens that would place on Google, our guest is unlikely to be receptive to imposing additional procedure and transparency, but maybe an appeal to the &amp;quot;Don&#039;t be evil&amp;quot; side of the company would help?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about companies that aren&#039;t as obviously influential as Google (but hope to be). It seems a lot of us might be offended because of something akin to the &amp;quot;essential service&amp;quot; that Google has--so we become rightfully critical of how they punish/banish users. But how might other companies know when they cross the threshold from bullied to bully?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Due Process Defaults==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are at least two default possibilities for due process of takedowns on the internet: (1) Due process afforded before takedown (default on), and (2) take down immediately upon request and afford due process to restore the content (default off). Google will probably take the stance that (2), default off, is a more appropriate standard for internet due process. Since internet content can do a great deal of harm in a very short period of time, it makes sense to take it down immediately (after someone has complained that it might be harmful information) and create a process by which the uploaded can ask that it be restored. That way the damage of offensive content is mitigated, but could not be unilaterally censored. (also, this process probably does the best job of limiting the liability of companies like Google, YouTube, etc). I think one of the biggest problem companies such as Google face is however that after summary proceedings, which in Europe can take more than 3 months after the lawsuit was filed, the procedure on the merits can take years and years (up to 6 or even more years), so it takes too much time until the case comes to an end (unless parties are willing to settle). Another problem are the huge damages (imposed on a daily basis in case of non-compliance) that are imposed very easily and run up very quickly. I would like to hear the thoughts of the guests on this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The counter argument to the above is that this cripples the generatively of the internet. If anyone can request that content be taken down which web companies must comply with, it would be possible for anyone to (at least temporarily) gag the production of new content. A better compromise might be to require that the requester make some showing of who they are and how they will be harmed (at something resembling a probable cause standard) before web companies must comply with such a complaint.&lt;br /&gt;
:Due process is needed for the protection of the party against which actions to be taken, and in the interest of public notice. According to Facebook terms of service, an account will be disabled if it is found to repeatedly infringe other people&#039;s intellectual property rights. Here a due process is needed to disable an account on Facebook. How many times does &amp;quot;repeatedly&amp;quot; refer to? Who have the final say on this &amp;quot;infringement&amp;quot; of other people&#039;s intellectual property rights? Hope to hear more from our guest on their practice to deal with this, and how they balance between the alleged owner of the right and the one against whom the action to be taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would also be interesting to hear how different companies have complained and whether any of them have slayed the Giant - known as Google. Have any ever threatened back or been able to have some worthy leverage against Google?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Google and China==&lt;br /&gt;
Although today&#039;s class isn&#039;t about this topic, it&#039;s hard to believe it won&#039;t come up. It will be interesting to hear whether the Google guest will have a response to Jason&#039;s concern that Google disengaging with China will allow unscrupulous actors to dominate the world&#039;s biggest internet market, and that Google, even if it had to make compromises, could do more good than evil by working inside China.&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, The voice of &amp;quot;Google in China&amp;quot; not &amp;quot;Google China&amp;quot; is around for a while. It will be interesting to hear how Google will do business in China if it finally decided to pull out. This will have a huge impact on not only the internet users in China, but also the resellers and strategic partners of Google China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think there is some connection between the Google-China news and today&#039;s topic.  From a macro perspective, what kind of due process should be given to Google (or any other type of Internet service provider) before the decision is made to force them to withdraw?  Today&#039;s speaker should have some good insights into Google&#039;s experiences with Turkey to might help us understand what the coming fight with China may look like. Another thing to consider with regard to today&#039;s topic is whether there should be (if any) due process afforded to China itself - by releasing the publicity statement, Google is essentially making wide allegations against (presumably) the Chinese Government - does this raise due process concerns? Was this the best or only way to handle it? It certainly got the world&#039;s attention, and I do find it doubtful that China would have responded in any other way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I absolutely agree that Google-China has the flavor of a due process question--although we should keep in mind the different types of &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; in play (perhaps there&#039;s a fundamental human right not to be turned over to hostile authorities, and a consumer right to retain control over one&#039;s data, but is there really a right to be listed in a search engine?  or to have access to such a search engine at all?).  Just as what we call &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; may be flexible, &amp;quot;due process&amp;quot; could be flexible too--for instance, does a GNI decision count as due process, even if it&#039;s only an association of private parties?  For some additional context on these issues, check out this [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html excellent article] on Google, Turkey, Thailand, and free-speech concerns, which seems to indicate Google is much more interested in establishing a process than some of our classmates above predicted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Another concern: will there be due process for those individual&#039;s whose email accounts were breached? Will they be informed, and what, if anything, would they be entitled to?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&amp;diff=739</id>
		<title>Day 8 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&amp;diff=739"/>
		<updated>2010-01-14T01:55:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;For those who aren&#039;t familiar, here are [http://creativecommons.org/dmca/ Creative Commons&#039;] and [http://www.google.com/dmca.html Google&#039;s] explanations of DMCA Notice and Takedown Procedures, one example of Due Process online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Should there be Due Process Online==&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like there should be, though we can&#039;t predict where the folks from Google believe it should come from. On the one hand, you might think that Google is &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; a company, and their due process obligations are not greater than those of any other private entity who effects your life: i.e. send a letter to the complaint department and pray. At the entire other end of the spectrum, you might think that Google is such a critical point-of-control online that the government should have no problem regulating them in areas from copyright to even their handling of search results and their imposition of the death penalty. My guess is that Google believes itself to be in the former, &amp;quot;leave-us-alone&amp;quot; pile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&#039;s great how the website with the article on the Google death penalty was filled with mostly internal links, which seems to be intended to raise its Google rank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it is, Google and other service providers like facebook are a black box.  In the Death Penalty article it seemed that a site could be given the death penalty without even knowing it had done something wrong; theoretically a company could set up spam that attempts to increase the page rank of a competitor with the intention it gets the Google Death Penalty. Clearer guidelines are needed and more open and transparent procedures for resolving cases. Our guest, however, might point out that spammers are infinitely creative, and trying to set up rules in advance to deal with every possible situation is just inviting people of ill-will to take advantage of Google.  Thus, it might be argued that the company should have every right to optimize its product for the vast majority of non-malicious users around the word.  For those reasons, along with the additional burdens that would place on Google, our guest is unlikely to be receptive to imposing additional procedure and transparency, but maybe an appeal to the &amp;quot;Don&#039;t be evil&amp;quot; side of the company would help?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about companies that aren&#039;t as obviously influential as Google (but hope to be). It seems a lot of us might be offended because of something akin to the &amp;quot;essential service&amp;quot; that Google has--so we become rightfully critical of how they punish/banish users. But how might other companies know when they cross the threshold from bullied to bully?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Due Process Defaults==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are at least two default possibilities for due process of takedowns on the internet: (1) Due process afforded before takedown (default on), and (2) take down immediately upon request and afford due process to restore the content (default off). Google will probably take the stance that (2), default off, is a more appropriate standard for internet due process. Since internet content can do a great deal of harm in a very short period of time, it makes sense to take it down immediately (after someone has complained that it might be harmful information) and create a process by which the uploaded can ask that it be restored. That way the damage of offensive content is mitigated, but could not be unilaterally censored. (also, this process probably does the best job of limiting the liability of companies like Google, YouTube, etc). I think one of the biggest problem companies such as Google face is however that after summary proceedings, which in Europe can take more than 3 months after the lawsuit was filed, the procedure on the merits can take years and years (up to 6 or even more years), so it takes too much time until the case comes to an end (unless parties are willing to settle). Another problem are the huge damages (imposed on a daily basis in case of non-compliance) that are imposed very easily and run up very quickly. I would like to hear the thoughts of the guests on this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The counter argument to the above is that this cripples the generatively of the internet. If anyone can request that content be taken down which web companies must comply with, it would be possible for anyone to (at least temporarily) gag the production of new content. A better compromise might be to require that the requester make some showing of who they are and how they will be harmed (at something resembling a probable cause standard) before web companies must comply with such a complaint.&lt;br /&gt;
:Due process is needed for the protection of the party against which actions to be taken, and in the interest of public notice. According to Facebook terms of service, an account will be disabled if it is found to repeatedly infringe other people&#039;s intellectual property rights. Here a due process is needed to disable an account on Facebook. How many times does &amp;quot;repeatedly&amp;quot; refer to? Who have the final say on this &amp;quot;infringement&amp;quot; of other people&#039;s intellectual property rights? Hope to hear more from our guest on their practice to deal with this, and how they balance between the alleged owner of the right and the one against whom the action to be taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would also be interesting to hear how different companies have complained and whether any of them have slayed the Giant - known as Google. Have any ever threatened back or been able to have some worthy leverage against Google?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Google and China==&lt;br /&gt;
Although today&#039;s class isn&#039;t about this topic, it&#039;s hard to believe it won&#039;t come up. It will be interesting to hear whether the Google guest will have a response to Jason&#039;s concern that Google disengaging with China will allow unscrupulous actors to dominate the world&#039;s biggest internet market, and that Google, even if it had to make compromises, could do more good than evil by working inside China.&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, The voice of &amp;quot;Google in China&amp;quot; not &amp;quot;Google China&amp;quot; is around for a while. It will be interesting to hear how Google will do business in China if it finally decided to pull out. This will have a huge impact on not only the internet users in China, but also the resellers and strategic partners of Google China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think there is some connection between the Google-China news and today&#039;s topic.  From a macro perspective, what kind of due process should be given to Google (or any other type of Internet service provider) before the decision is made to force them to withdraw?  Today&#039;s speaker should have some good insights into Google&#039;s experiences with Turkey to might help us understand what the coming fight with China may look like. Another thing to consider with regard to today&#039;s topic is whether there should be (if any) due process afforded to China itself - by releasing the publicity statement, Google is essentially making wide allegations against (presumably) the Chinese Government - does this raise due process concerns? Was this the best or only way to handle it? It certainly got the world&#039;s attention, and I do find it doubtful that China would have responded in any other way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I absolutely agree that Google-China has the flavor of a due process question--although we should keep in mind the different types of &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; in play (perhaps there&#039;s a fundamental human right not to be turned over to hostile authorities, and a consumer right to retain control over one&#039;s data, but is there really a right to be listed in a search engine?  or to have access to such a search engine at all?).  Just as what we call &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; may be flexible, &amp;quot;due process&amp;quot; could be flexible too--for instance, does a GNI decision count as due process, even if it&#039;s only an association of private parties?  For some additional context on these issues, check out this [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html excellent article] on Google, Turkey, Thailand, and free-speech concerns, which seems to indicate Google is much more interested in establishing a process than some of our classmates above predicted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Another concern: will there be due process for those individual&#039;s whose email accounts were breached? Will they be informed, and what, if anything, would they be entitled to?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&amp;diff=736</id>
		<title>Day 8 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&amp;diff=736"/>
		<updated>2010-01-14T01:49:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;For those who aren&#039;t familiar, here are [http://creativecommons.org/dmca/ Creative Commons&#039;] and [http://www.google.com/dmca.html Google&#039;s] explanations of DMCA Notice and Takedown Procedures, one example of Due Process online&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Should there be Due Process Online==&lt;br /&gt;
It seems like there should be, though we can&#039;t predict where the folks from Google believe it should come from. On the one hand, you might think that Google is &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; a company, and their due process obligations are not greater than those of any other private entity who effects your life: i.e. send a letter to the complaint department and pray. At the entire other end of the spectrum, you might think that Google is such a critical point-of-control online that the government should have no problem regulating them in areas from copyright to even their handling of search results and their imposition of the death penalty. My guess is that Google believes itself to be in the former, &amp;quot;leave-us-alone&amp;quot; pile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&#039;s great how the website with the article on the Google death penalty was filled with mostly internal links, which seems to be intended to raise its Google rank.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it is, Google and other service providers like facebook are a black box.  In the Death Penalty article it seemed that a site could be given the death penalty without even knowing it had done something wrong; theoretically a company could set up spam that attempts to increase the page rank of a competitor with the intention it gets the Google Death Penalty. Clearer guidelines are needed and more open and transparent procedures for resolving cases. Our guest is unlikely to be receptive to imposing additional procedure and transparency, given the extra burdens that would place on Google, but maybe an appeal to the &amp;quot;Don&#039;t be evil&amp;quot; side of the company would help?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Due Process Defaults==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are at least two default possibilities for due process of takedowns on the internet: (1) Due process afforded before takedown (default on), and (2) take down immediately upon request and afford due process to restore the content (default off). Google will probably take the stance that (2), default off, is a more appropriate standard for internet due process. Since internet content can do a great deal of harm in a very short period of time, it makes sense to take it down immediately (after someone has complained that it might be harmful information) and create a process by which the uploaded can ask that it be restored. That way the damage of offensive content is mitigated, but could not be unilaterally censored. (also, this process probably does the best job of limiting the liability of companies like Google, YouTube, etc). I think one of the biggest problem companies such as Google face is however that after summary proceedings, which in Europe can take more than 3 months after the lawsuit was filed, the procedure on the merits can take years and years (up to 6 or even more years), so it takes too much time until the case comes to an end (unless parties are willing to settle). Another problem are the huge damages (imposed on a daily basis in case of non-compliance) that are imposed very easily and run up very quickly. I would like to hear the thoughts of the guests on this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The counter argument to the above is that this cripples the generatively of the internet. If anyone can request that content be taken down which web companies must comply with, it would be possible for anyone to (at least temporarily) gag the production of new content. A better compromise might be to require that the requester make some showing of who they are and how they will be harmed (at something resembling a probable cause standard) before web companies must comply with such a complaint.&lt;br /&gt;
:Due process is needed for the protection of the party against which actions to be taken, and in the interest of public notice. According to Facebook terms of service, an account will be disabled if it is found to repeatedly infringe other people&#039;s intellectual property rights. Here a due process is needed to disable an account on Facebook. How many times does &amp;quot;repeatedly&amp;quot; refer to? Who have the final say on this &amp;quot;infringement&amp;quot; of other people&#039;s intellectual property rights? Hope to hear more from our guest on their practice to deal with this, and how they balance between the alleged owner of the right and the one against whom the action to be taken.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would also be interesting to hear how different companies have complained and whether any of them have slayed the Giant - known as Google. Have any ever threatened back or been able to have some worthy leverage against Google?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Google and China==&lt;br /&gt;
Although today&#039;s class isn&#039;t about this topic, it&#039;s hard to believe it won&#039;t come up. It will be interesting to hear whether the Google guest will have a response to Jason&#039;s concern that Google disengaging with China will allow unscrupulous actors to dominate the world&#039;s biggest internet market, and that Google, even if it had to make compromises, could do more good than evil by working inside China.&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, The voice of &amp;quot;Google in China&amp;quot; not &amp;quot;Google China&amp;quot; is around for a while. It will be interesting to hear how Google will do business in China if it finally decided to pull out. This will have a huge impact on not only the internet users in China, but also the resellers and strategic partners of Google China.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I think there is some connection between the Google-China news and today&#039;s topic.  From a macro perspective, what kind of due process should be given to Google (or any other type of Internet service provider) before the decision is made to force them to withdraw?  Today&#039;s speaker should have some good insights into Google&#039;s experiences with Turkey to might help us understand what the coming fight with China may look like. Another thing to consider with regard to today&#039;s topic is whether there should be (if any) due process afforded to China itself - by releasing the publicity statement, Google is essentially making wide allegations against (presumably) the Chinese Government - does this raise due process concerns? Was this the best or only way to handle it? It certainly got the world&#039;s attention, and I do find it doubtful that China would have responded in any other way.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I absolutely agree that Google-China has the flavor of a due process question--although we should keep in mind the different types of &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; in play (perhaps there&#039;s a fundamental human right not to be turned over to hostile authorities, and a consumer right to retain control over one&#039;s data, but is there really a right to be listed in a search engine?  or to have access to such a search engine at all?).  Just as what we call &amp;quot;rights&amp;quot; may be flexible, &amp;quot;due process&amp;quot; could be flexible too--for instance, does a GNI decision count as due process, even if it&#039;s only an association of private parties?  For some additional context on these issues, check out this [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html excellent article] on Google, Turkey, Thailand, and free-speech concerns, which seems to indicate Google is much more interested in establishing a process than some of our classmates above predicted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Another concern: will there be due process for those individual&#039;s whose email accounts were breached? Will they be informed, and what, if anything, would they be entitled to?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=623</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=623"/>
		<updated>2010-01-13T00:46:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot; predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reputation Defender ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, congratulations to Reputation Defender for [http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/reputationdefender-kleiner-bessemer-8-65-million/ raising $8.65 million last year] (announced today, January 12, 2010).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Fertik will probably 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 the problems raised by this kind of business:&lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ Is Reputation Defender a tool to defend or artificially improve one&#039;s reputation?  (And does it matter?)  &lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ Does Reputation Defender&#039;s incentive to &#039;&#039;hide&#039;&#039; the methods they use to get content removed (sometimes as simple as a DMCA takedown) actually &#039;&#039;slow&#039;&#039; the evolution of civility on the Net? &lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ If Reputation Defender does intend to expand onto Facebook, as suggested in the article linked to above, would that be a privacy violation?  Aren&#039;t individuals entitled to talk about each other in a social networking setting? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We&#039;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&#039;t get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could (perhaps, specifically, how it would interact with Facebook).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another apparent weakness of ReputationDefender is that while they are one company with a limited amount of employed people working for them, they might have to fight against a legion of anonymous people - which sometimes amounts to over 9,000 participants - that can be easily mobilized in certain image boards and forums. It would be also interesting to know how they would deal with this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reputation Defender will probably also emphasize how its product is &amp;quot;family-friendly&amp;quot; -- its website must have more mentions of protecting your family and children than the all of the other websites we&#039;ve looked at in the class, combined. Is Reputation Defender profiting from a generational gap with regard to privacy? Parents may be horrified by what their children post online, and assume it will doom their career prospects, but by the time the children are adults, it may be normal to have that information freely available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, we would be very interested to hear anecdotes from our guests about the most compelling use cases for ReputationDefender - where does the majority of their business come from? What are some surprising use cases they have seen with the product? How do they plan to expand with this new infusion of cash?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anonymity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.  (As 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.)  This made lead naturally into a discussion of how to work with governments who are much less protective of freedom of expression than the US government is, given strong First Amendment values here.  In light of the well-publicized events surrounding Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning, Ebele may express Yahoo&#039;s recent concerns with anonymity and its sometimes drastic importance outside the U.S.  Continuing on the international theme, we would be interested to hear our guests&#039; opinion about Google&#039;s dramatic announcement today about China, and wonder if it will have any effect on Mozilla.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user&#039;s control, we think services such as Tor do quite a good job. We may also discuss whether it would be good or bad to allow less skilled Internet users to get access to these tools, and, if it would be a good thing, how these technologies could be built-in to the browser or bundled with the OS. 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. Our guests may also speak to what drawbacks are associated with anonymizing services like Tor or [http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/ DomainsbyProxy] which simultaneously maintain privacy for certain users, but are specifically designed to thwart disclosure requirements where they still exist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mozilla and Privacy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We expect 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 a website upholds certain privacy standards. Even more importantly, it would allow users, in an easy way, to realize the diverse range of privacy policies (and the 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.  The people from Mozilla will probably express the difficulty in creating icons that are simple enough to be understood at a glance and useable by a wide range of users when there is such wide variety in privacy policies. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 it desires with Firefox by making it core browser functionality. The guests are likely to justify why modifications to the browsers that we use are a necessary or desired way to implement them, and we should also 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 &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=620</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=620"/>
		<updated>2010-01-13T00:45:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot; predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reputation Defender ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, congratulations to Reputation Defender for [http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/reputationdefender-kleiner-bessemer-8-65-million/ raising $8.65 million last year] (announced today, January 12, 2010).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Fertik will probably 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 the problems raised by this kind of business:&lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ Is Reputation Defender a tool to defend or artificially improve one&#039;s reputation?  (And does it matter?)  &lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ Does Reputation Defender&#039;s incentive to &#039;&#039;hide&#039;&#039; the methods they use to get content removed (sometimes as simple as a DMCA takedown) actually &#039;&#039;slow&#039;&#039; the evolution of civility on the Net? &lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ If Reputation Defender does intend to expand onto Facebook, as suggested in the article linked to above, would that be a privacy violation?  Aren&#039;t individuals entitled to talk about each other in a social networking setting? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We&#039;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&#039;t get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could (perhaps, specifically, how it would interact with Facebook).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another apparent weakness of ReputationDefender is that while they are one company with a limited amount of employed people working for them, they might have to fight against a legion of anonymous people - which sometimes amounts to over 9,000 participants - that can be easily mobilized in certain image boards and forums. It would be also interesting to know how they would deal with this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reputation Defender will probably also emphasize how its product is &amp;quot;family-friendly&amp;quot; -- its website must have more mentions of protecting your family and children than the all of the other websites we&#039;ve looked at in the class, combined. Is Reputation Defender profiting from a generational gap with regard to privacy? Parents may be horrified by what their children post online, and assume it will doom their career prospects, but by the time the children are adults, it may be normal to have that information freely available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, we would be very interested to hear anecdotes from our guests about the most compelling use cases for ReputationDefender - where does the majority of their business come from? What are some surprising use cases they have seen with the product? How do they plan to expand with this new infusion of cash?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anonymity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.  (As 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.)  This made lead naturally into a discussion of how to work with governments who are much less protective of freedom of expression than the US government is, given strong First Amendment values here.  In light of the well-publicized events surrounding Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning, Ebele may express Yahoo&#039;s recent concerns with anonymity and its sometimes drastic importance outside the U.S.  Continuing on the international theme, we would be interested to hear our guests&#039; opinion about Google&#039;s dramatic announcement today about China, and wonder if it will have any effect on Mozilla.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user&#039;s control, we think services such as Tor do quite a good job. We may also discuss whether it would be good or bad to allow less skilled Internet users to get access to these tools, and, if it would be a good thing, how these technologies could be built-in to the browser or bundled with the OS. 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. Our guests may also speak to what drawbacks are associated with anonymizing services like Tor or [http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/ DomainsbyProxy] which simultaneously maintain privacy for certain users, but are specifically designed to thwart disclosure requirements where they still exist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mozilla and Privacy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We expect 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 a website upholds certain privacy standards. Even more importantly, it would allow users, in an easy way, to realize the diverse range of privacy policies (and the 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.  The people from Mozilla will probably express the difficulty in creating icons that are simple enough to be understood at a glance and useable by a wide range of users when there is such wide variety in privacy 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 it desires 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 &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=616</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=616"/>
		<updated>2010-01-13T00:40:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot; predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reputation Defender ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, congratulations to Reputation Defender for [http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/reputationdefender-kleiner-bessemer-8-65-million/ raising $8.65 million last year] (announced today, January 12, 2010).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Fertik will probably 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 the problems raised by this kind of business:&lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ Is Reputation Defender a tool to defend or artificially improve one&#039;s reputation?  (And does it matter?)  &lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ Does Reputation Defender&#039;s incentive to &#039;&#039;hide&#039;&#039; the methods they use to get content removed (sometimes as simple as a DMCA takedown) actually &#039;&#039;slow&#039;&#039; the evolution of civility on the Net? &lt;br /&gt;
:â¢ If Reputation Defender does intend to expand onto Facebook, as suggested in the article linked to above, would that be a privacy violation?  Aren&#039;t individuals entitled to talk about each other in a social networking setting? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We&#039;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&#039;t get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could (perhaps, specifically, how it would interact with Facebook).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another apparent weakness of ReputationDefender is that while they are one company with a limited amount of employed people working for them, they might have to fight against a legion of anonymous people - which sometimes amounts to over 9,000 participants - that can be easily mobilized in certain image boards and forums. It would be also interesting to know how they would deal with this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reputation Defender will probably also emphasize how its product is &amp;quot;family-friendly&amp;quot; -- its website must have more mentions of protecting your family and children than the all of the other websites we&#039;ve looked at in the class, combined. Is Reputation Defender profiting from a generational gap with regard to privacy? Parents may be horrified by what their children post online, and assume it will doom their career prospects, but by the time the children are adults, it may be normal to have that information freely available.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, we would be very interested to hear anecdotes from our guests about the most compelling use cases for ReputationDefender - where does the majority of their business come from? What are some surprising use cases they have seen with the product? How do they plan to expand with this new infusion of cash?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anonymity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user&#039;s control, we think services such as Tor do quite a good job. We may also discuss whether it would be good or bad to allow less skilled Internet users to get access to these tools, and, if it would be a good thing, how these technologies could be built-in to the browser or bundled with the OS. 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. Our guests may also speak to what drawbacks are associated with anonymizing services like Tor or [http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/ DomainsbyProxy] which simultaneously maintain privacy for certain users, but are specifically designed to thwart disclosure requirements where they still exist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In light of the well-publicized events surrounding Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning, Ebele may express Yahoo&#039;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. We would be interested to hear our guests&#039; opinion about Google&#039;s dramatic announcement today about China, and wonder if it will have any effect on Mozilla.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mozilla and Privacy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We expect 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 a website upholds certain privacy standards. Even more importantly, it would allow users, in an easy way, to realize the diverse range of privacy policies (and the 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.  The people from Mozilla will probably express the difficulty in creating icons that are simple enough to be understood at a glance and useable by a wide range of users when there is such wide variety in privacy 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 it desires 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 &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=589</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=589"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T22:42:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective anonymous predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reputation Defender ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&#039;s reputation?  (And does it matter?)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We&#039;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&#039;t get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anonymity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 me 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user&#039;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mozilla and Privacy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=584</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=584"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T22:31:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective anonymous predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&#039;s reputation?  (And does it matter?)  Further, 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 me 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We&#039;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&#039;t get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user&#039;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.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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). While the advantages of easy-to-understand privacy icons are straightforward, the guests likely to justify why modifications to the browsers that we use are a necessary or desired way to implement them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 user 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 &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=583</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=583"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T22:31:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective anonymous predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&#039;s reputation?  (And does it matter?)  Further, 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 me 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We&#039;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&#039;t get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user&#039;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.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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). While the advantages of easy-to-understand privacy icons are straightforward, the guests likely to justify why modifications to the browsers that we use are a necessary or desired way to implement them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 user 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 &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=582</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=582"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T22:30:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective anonymous predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, I hope that the students and guests will discuss that these kinds of initiatives are just one bridge too far; is it a tool to defend or artificially improve one&#039;s reputation?  (And does it matter?)  Further, 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 me 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We&#039;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&#039;t get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user&#039;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.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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). While the advantages of easy-to-understand privacy icons are straightforward, the guests likely to justify why modifications to the browsers that we use are a necessary or desired way to implement them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 user 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 &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=581</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=581"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T22:30:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective anonymous predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, I hope that the students and guests will discuss that these kinds of initiatives are just one bridge too far; is it a tool to defend or artificially improve one&#039;s reputation?  (And does it matter?)  We&#039;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&#039;t get the Google Death Penalty, as well as what technological or legal tools Reputation Defender would add if it could.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, 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 me 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of anonymity on the Internet in the user&#039;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.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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). While the advantages of easy-to-understand privacy icons are straightforward, the guests likely to justify why modifications to the browsers that we use are a necessary or desired way to implement them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 user 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 &amp;quot;promoted&amp;quot; to core browser functionality be crowdsourced somehow?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=576</id>
		<title>Day 7 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_7_Predictions&amp;diff=576"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T21:52:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In the spirit of today&#039;s issues, our collective anonymous predictions are set out below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the issue of online defamation, I 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 me 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Probably, Mr. Fertik will try to persuade us that Reputation defender offers great advantages to improve our reputation (even promoted by Dr. Phill?!). However, I hope that the students and guests will discuss that these kinds of initiatives are just one brigde too far. Is reputation defender a tool to defend or artifically improve your reputation?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=546</id>
		<title>Day 6 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=546"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T02:29:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Daniel: Our guests will probably discuss at length the challenges that Dispute Finder and most web-based cooperative tools bump into while attempting to harness input from virtual crowds. I guess they will talk about Dispute Finderâs design difficulties, such as costs and trade-offs (between precision and recall, between user-friendliness and number / quality of features, etc). Theyâll most likely also summon stories from the interviews discussed in the document we received, perhaps to illustrate content-layer problems with measurement of &amp;quot;information sources reliability&amp;quot;; usersâ misunderstandings / trouble with logic operations; and group biases.&lt;br /&gt;
I would love to hear their views on the [http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i256/f09/lectures/RobEnnalsGuestLecture.ppt proposed use of Turks] to improve the database of disputed claims and arguments, as well as on the current biases of the disputed facts / arguments presently listed by the software.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jason: I predict that there will be a good deal of discussion of what Daniel calls the &amp;quot;user-friendliness&amp;quot; aspect of these tools - and I hope there is, because it&#039;s critical. Specifically, what is the necessary ratio between DisputeFinder or Herdict &amp;quot;passive users&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;active reporters&amp;quot; to make a project successful? I say this because both Herdict and DisputeFinder look somewhat sparsely-populated for them to be maximally-useful right now. For example, Herdict is [http://www.herdict.org/web/explore/country/CN;jsessionid=4A2D95D3EB7A8F96B073DE77D3654D53 reporting] that 2 Chinese users have reported YouTube as inaccessible. How do I interpret that? What percent of people who might know about and like Herdict in China are reporting back to Herdict? We know that Wikipedia is successful in spite of the fact that only a very small portion of readers become really regular editors - but Wikipedia is also one of the most visited sites in the world. I hope we discuss what strategies these organizations are employing to build participation for these more niche offerings. [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Reuben: When Daniel talks about the challenges of web-based cooperative tools, my first thought is about the challenge of a achieving a critical mass.  I poked around with Dispute Finder for just over an hour this morning and during the entirety of my browsing the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, and Slate I only came across one disputed claim.  No offense to America&#039;s news media, but my guess is that what I read is more disputed than that, but that there just aren&#039;t enough people trolling the news sites and adding claims to the dispute finder database for the service to actually be that helpful yet.  Jason&#039;s point about passive users versus active reporters is important.  I too would like to hear about how to reach a critical mass and how many active users are needed in order to have a useful service.  I&#039;d also like to hear about the potential for users to participate in a more passive manner - notwithstanding the privacy issues, if Herdict could just monitor my browsing and automatically send a report whenever I come across an inaccessible website, something akin to a Last.fm for my click stream, the data would seem to be much more complete than simply recording whatever I choose to report.  Never underestimate the laziness of the average person.  My prediction is that our guests acknowledge the shortcomings in their current offerings while remaining optimistic about the possibilities of community based technology. [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Ramesh: I agree with Reuben on the usefulness of Dispute Finder and Herdict. While Wikipedia (and Yelp, and a few other sites) show that sometimes, you can get useful content for free, that&#039;s not always the case. DisputeFinder didn&#039;t find many disputes when I did my regular scan of news websites, even when reading articles on topics like medical marijuana and same-sex marriage. It seems like applications like DisputeFinder and Herdict would be better if they were more automated -- if DisputeFinder automatically attached itself to controversial terms, and especially, as Reuben suggested, if Herdict was not based on self-reporting. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Franny: I agree that a threshold level of dedicated trusted users (see Vicki&#039;s comments below) resolves many problems.  I hope our guests will discuss the strategies used by DisputeFinder, or any other website initiatives dependent on a large and broad variety of user input: (1) to attract that user base; and (2) to cope during the interim period while they continue to try to attract that user base.  For example, I wonder to what extent DisputeFinder has considered building in redundancy as a means of increasing the accuracy of its results (to borrow a strategy from CrowdFlower), or perhaps some combination of automation and redundancy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Andrew: I hope the discussion of how to achieve critical mass focuses as much on instilling/spreading an ethos as it does on ways to automate the DF system. Tools don&#039;t work without the accompanying human motivation: the wiki architecture is awesome, but (see our Predictions pages) they don&#039;t necessitate anything about a page&#039;s structure, and that&#039;s where the Wikipedian ethos steps in.  No matter how passive DF/Herdict eventually allow their users to be, those users will (probably) still have to take the first step of registering, installing the plug-in etc. To do that, they have to be persuaded of the importance of the problem the tools are meant to address. Until the supposed echo chamber, &amp;quot;daily me&amp;quot; effect of Internet discourse becomes a mainstream concern, DF will not be a mainstream tool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Tyler: I completely agree with above thoughts about Herdict and DisputeFinder needing to collect a critical mass of users before becoming useful. This seems to echo the idea that wikipedia was not useful for its first several years because it did not possess a critical mass of articles. However, I think there are some differences because individual pieces of wikipedia could become useful before wikipedia as a whole in that individual articles could become independantly useful before wikipedia became as comprehensive as it is today. I don&#039;t see that Herdict or DisputeFinder have the same capability to be useful while scaling because they require users to explicitly decide to install plugins and begin using their services before any benefit can be gained by that user. Wikipedia was able to gradually grow in prominence as users occasionally found information on wikipedia that they wanted through web searches. I am wondering if Herdict or DisputeFinder can take advantage of automated solutions to increase their seemingly as-yet sparsely populated databases? For example, could web crawling robots be used to identify at least some inaccesible sites with the expectation that this list could then be pruned by users rather than expecting it to materialize entirely by user submissions? Could DisputeFinder use a web crawling robot, in conjunction with sophisticated text parsers to begin identifying at least some topics that clearly involve dispute? I expect and hope that the guests will discuss some strategies for increasing the datasets of their projects to the point that they can obtain their critical mass of users and data more quickly. [[User:TylerLacey|TylerLacey]] 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Michael: In terms of achieving critical mass for utility, herdict seems to have an additional challenge to wikipedia and DisputeFinder. When users make contributions to wikipedia or DisputeFinder, the information they provide remains useful indefinitely (for the most part). Herdict, on the other hand requires constant updating. This is entirely possible (as twitter and facebook demonstrate), but it reflects an additional challenge. I would be curious to hear if there is any data to determine what the different requirements of such different sites would be. [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Daniel: Tyler has a great point here, so maybe we should ask if the Dispute Finder team has thought of an interesting dispute to explore well enough in terms of paraphrases / arguments, so that users could experience the full potential of the software and then be lured into becoming frequent contributors. [[User:Darbix|darbix]] 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily: &lt;br /&gt;
Dispute Finder bears an inherent flaw: individuals, not algorithms, decide whom and what to trust for information. Consider the watch on your wrist. If your watch starts to get the time wrong, you might try to fix the watch. You hope and pray your watch starts giving you accurate, dependable information because you like your watch. You might even love your watch. But, if it continues to betray your trust, and the people in your trusted circle insist your watch is wrong, you give up. You decide to trust a new watch, but your new watch will probably be reminiscent of your old watch with respect to personal taste, experience, and preferences. Most people are intuitive enough (though they donât necessarily convert insights into complex conclusions about source x versus source y) to know that 120 seconds of live, relatively unedited sound on Fox News Live or MSNBC Dayside is less likely to contain factually accurate information â even if relatively unimportant, like the location of a fire, or the total number of casualties in a mass shootingâ than a compulsively edited, fact-checked tome in the Sunday NY Times magazine, the Economist, or the New Yorker. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 3.5 of the Dispute Finder document, âDetermining Trustworthy Sources,â seems a bit absurd. It actually acknowledges the marketability challenges of its own software: âUnfortunatelyâ¦the sites people actually trust are often those that share the personâs own point of view.â So, again, what is this software and what, really, is the point? Segway into âCross-cutting themes.â Save the world. How? Is Dispute Finder intended to help people sue other people for libel? Richard Jewel (now deceased) had a reasonably compelling case. Thatâs probably why he successfully sued (for libel) every organization, from CNN, to NBC, to the NY Post. All settled. He collected from each of them. But Richard Jewel didnât need help from Dispute Finder. Richard Jewel had a case. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cross-cutting themes: âChange the technology, save the world.â Okay, why not? Isnât there something else smart people at Intel and UC Berkeley could be doing to make the world better? Last November, the New York Times produced an alarming story [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html] about the food stamp program in America(ânow expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.â) Also no shortage of children in custody. Last December, the New York Times obtained â and reported on [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile.html?_r=1&amp;amp;scp=1&amp;amp;sq=new%20york%20family%20court%20juvenile%20department%20of%20justice%20youth&amp;amp;st=cse]â a âconfidential draft reportâ prepared by a task force appointed by NY gov David Paterson: âNew York Stateâs current approach fails the young people who are drawn into the system, the public whose safety it is intended to protect, and the principles of good governance that demand effective use of scarce state resources.â Story also says the situation was so bad that the DOJ, at one point, was threatening to âtake over.â &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, if Intel is interested in contributing, how about addressing real problemsâhelping real peopleâ that could affect real, collective societal change and improvement? Children and education seem like obvious places to start. Basics like hardware and mentors could go a long way. Children in poverty struggle with range of issues, including asthma, low self-esteem, obesity, and depression. Consider children in places like the South Bronx (Jonathan Kozolâs children [http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-Children-Conscience-Nation/dp/0060976977]): allocation of resources in places like this (and/or lower-middle class communities), especially from companies like Intel, could change lives; give voices to people from whom we do not often hear. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interested to hear thoughts on Internet privacy, though I&#039;m not sure adults have an expectation of privacy anywhere [http://gawker.com/5444885/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-on-your-erased-privacy-these-are-the-social-norms-now] on the Internet. If you want privacy, don&#039;t put yourself on the Internet. Finally, on the subject of online harassment, if we accept that the Internet is a public place, to what extent is it acceptable to regulate online communication, including but not limited to comments deemed &#039;offensive&#039; on blogs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Predictions. Guests will be nice. Class will be nice. Hope to hear more about Dispute Finder&#039;s business model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tyler: I would like an explanation for why the contributor of a disputed claim on DisputeFinder needs to provide a link to an article that illustrates the opposing point of view. If there are no article, isn&#039;t it still valuable to identify a claim as disputed, especially since this could break DisputeFinder&#039;s dataset building-process into two parts? I could enter a disputed claim without a link to another source and then another user, once alerted to the potential dispute could track down and enter the article. I see the argument that an issue is not actually in dispute if there is no contradictory reports of it, but I wonder if an entry into DisputeFinder should be enough to create a &amp;quot;dispute&amp;quot;, rather than requiring a link. I agree that even a blog post outlining the opposing point of view would be more helpful than a &amp;quot;dispute&amp;quot; without any link, but I&#039;m not sure that it should be a requirement.  Today I entered a disputed claim as &amp;quot;Works prepared by amazon mechanical turkers are considered works for hire under the United States Copyright Act&amp;quot; to see if DisputeFinder would highlight portions of our wiki (which does not currently have any disputed claims, according to DisputeFinder) but I was stalled when it asked for a link to a web location outlining this dispute. Should I have entered the page on this wiki where we discuss the issue? I hope that the guests discuss this aspect of the DisputeFinder process. [[Special:Contributions/68.65.169.179|68.65.169.179]] 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Tyler: Another question that came up during my lunchtime discussion of DisputeFinder with some of our classmates: is there a practical way that DisputeFinder could leverage the existing collection of topics that wikipedia has flagged as a &amp;quot;point of view&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;non-neutral&amp;quot; to boost DisputeFinder&#039;s database of disputes?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth:  Actually, I tend to think the need to cite an article is a useful safeguard.  It mirrors Wikipedia&#039;s rule that contributors can&#039;t do original research, and I think it exists for the same reason: to keep spammer-activists from simply flinging their views into these trusted systems.  It&#039;s just to easy to go around labeling hundreds of things as disputed.  Now, you could just go write a wiki on Amazon Mechanical Turk and then cite to it on dispute finder, much as anyone can publish an article on SSRN and then write a Wikipedia page, but it does provide some measure of protection (it stopped Tyler).  One alternative solution is for DisputeFinder to flag in a lighter color, or a different color, claims that are marked disputed but have no article support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Victoria: I completely agree with the former point that DisputeFinder&#039;s success is dependent on gaining a critical mass of end users. In addition to the need for more users, I think the platform is very trusting of the end users themselves. DisputeFinder allows for a lot of users to subjectively claim anything is disputed even when it begins to reach the absurd. One EscapistMagazine.com posted in June 2009, that the following topics were included on the disputed list &amp;quot;The 2009 Iran Presidential election was rigged,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Recycling is good for the environment,&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;2Pac is dead,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Dick Cheney is a robot&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Italians look good.&amp;quot; Although theoretically the idea of a marketplace of ideas works - without the appropriate robust marketplace DisputeFinder becomes a caricature of the truth-seeking function of free speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Michael: I am interested to hear the speakers from DisputeFinder describe why they believe the simple knowledge of a dispute is socially valuable. The extent to which a statement is disputed seems like it would be more valuable. I&#039;d be interested to hear if our speakers expect to include a scale of dispute to their software, such as that used in Herdict (the different colored sheep).&lt;br /&gt;
:I predict that DisputeFinder will view one of its most difficult challenges to be determining the trustworthiness of sources. Unlike CrowdFlower, DisputeFinder may not be able to simply use agreement as an accurate rubric for which user-supplied links are trustworthy and which are spam. Since the nature of the site is to highlight disagreement, it doesn&#039;t seem possible to use user agreement as the benchmark of useful data for their service. I would be interested to hear what DisputeFinder uses as its criteria for determining which data is reliable (meaning non-spam). [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Elisabeth: I&#039;m not sure why a crowd-voting system isn&#039;t appropriate--after all, people on both sides of a given debate can vote up sources they consider most trustworthy--but I&#039;d be interested to hear how our speakers think it has worked.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Juan: I&#039;m interested in hearing their thoughts on the collection of disputed claims. As the material mentioned, most people who were interviewed are interested in applying Dispute Finder to particular areas that affect them. Thus, how will they collect data for areas not that popular or useful to most people, especially there are no other incentives to encourage claim creation. I guess building up community as wikipedia or herdict did might be one solution. The question is how this community can be built up. Also, I kind of feel Dispute Finder overlaps with the search services provided by Google and other search engines. If people are interested in one topic, they can always use Google or other search services to find the corroborations or objections on it. By determining trustworthy resources, can I say Dispute Finder sort of limited the available resources to people? To me, &amp;quot;trustworthy resources&amp;quot; is more like a subjective concept, everyone can has his/her own trustworthy resources. Is there a need to have a website telling us which resource is trustworthy, especially the site itself said it is a difficult tradeoff to determine the trustworthy resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sharona: I totally agree with everyone&#039;s comments about the lack of a critical mass, and I would be curious to hear how they think they could theoretically gain one. Would people actually be drawn to this the way they are to edit wikipedia pages? Is it simply a matter of a marketing strategy? Another question I had while reading the website and the other document was regarding the phrase &amp;quot;trusted source.&amp;quot; Who defines that? The users? What if people start claiming that what DisputeFinder may deem &amp;quot;unreliable&amp;quot; is a trusted source in their view? Who will stop them, and will that be antithetical to DisputeFinder&#039;s ethos?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth:  looking at all of our readings together--on Dispute Finder, new.net, and Herdict--makes me think about how we&#039;re creating an increasingly atomized web, where users have remarkably different experiences in the Internet space.  It&#039;s not just that people are accessing different content.  Some people are passively consuming stories from CNN, others are carefully sculpting an information diet from RSS feeders and DisputeFinder trusted sources, and still others are contributing to all different kinds of tasks, from tracking filtering around the world to working on SETI.  Even &amp;quot;contribution&amp;quot; work can be active or passively happening in the background (Wikipedia is active; SETI is background, and DisputeFinder and Herdict are active now but could be passive if some of the tech suggestions above are implemented).  Extensions like Readability and the popularity of mobile phone browsers make the web look totally different for different users, and if new.net takes off, it won&#039;t even be interoperable between ISPs!  The question of &amp;quot;how we interact with the internet&amp;quot; thus will become even more complex as the user experience splinters even further.  And so (dragging this mediation back to class), I would like to hear how Herdict and DisputeFinder see their audiences.  Is the vision global acceptance?  Or is it a critical mass large enough to get the job done--to identify most blocked sites and most disputes claims--and specialized use only by those who are particularly interested in the topic?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth: and one theme that connects all of these services is the need for active users.  How do we foster a culture in which people think they have a responsibility to contribute to the web (beyond even contributing pure content), instead of just using it?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=545</id>
		<title>Day 6 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=545"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T02:27:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Daniel: Our guests will probably discuss at length the challenges that Dispute Finder and most web-based cooperative tools bump into while attempting to harness input from virtual crowds. I guess they will talk about Dispute Finderâs design difficulties, such as costs and trade-offs (between precision and recall, between user-friendliness and number / quality of features, etc). Theyâll most likely also summon stories from the interviews discussed in the document we received, perhaps to illustrate content-layer problems with measurement of &amp;quot;information sources reliability&amp;quot;; usersâ misunderstandings / trouble with logic operations; and group biases.&lt;br /&gt;
I would love to hear their views on the [http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i256/f09/lectures/RobEnnalsGuestLecture.ppt proposed use of Turks] to improve the database of disputed claims and arguments, as well as on the current biases of the disputed facts / arguments presently listed by the software.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jason: I predict that there will be a good deal of discussion of what Daniel calls the &amp;quot;user-friendliness&amp;quot; aspect of these tools - and I hope there is, because it&#039;s critical. Specifically, what is the necessary ratio between DisputeFinder or Herdict &amp;quot;passive users&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;active reporters&amp;quot; to make a project successful? I say this because both Herdict and DisputeFinder look somewhat sparsely-populated for them to be maximally-useful right now. For example, Herdict is [http://www.herdict.org/web/explore/country/CN;jsessionid=4A2D95D3EB7A8F96B073DE77D3654D53 reporting] that 2 Chinese users have reported YouTube as inaccessible. How do I interpret that? What percent of people who might know about and like Herdict in China are reporting back to Herdict? We know that Wikipedia is successful in spite of the fact that only a very small portion of readers become really regular editors - but Wikipedia is also one of the most visited sites in the world. I hope we discuss what strategies these organizations are employing to build participation for these more niche offerings. [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Reuben: When Daniel talks about the challenges of web-based cooperative tools, my first thought is about the challenge of a achieving a critical mass.  I poked around with Dispute Finder for just over an hour this morning and during the entirety of my browsing the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, and Slate I only came across one disputed claim.  No offense to America&#039;s news media, but my guess is that what I read is more disputed than that, but that there just aren&#039;t enough people trolling the news sites and adding claims to the dispute finder database for the service to actually be that helpful yet.  Jason&#039;s point about passive users versus active reporters is important.  I too would like to hear about how to reach a critical mass and how many active users are needed in order to have a useful service.  I&#039;d also like to hear about the potential for users to participate in a more passive manner - notwithstanding the privacy issues, if Herdict could just monitor my browsing and automatically send a report whenever I come across an inaccessible website, something akin to a Last.fm for my click stream, the data would seem to be much more complete than simply recording whatever I choose to report.  Never underestimate the laziness of the average person.  My prediction is that our guests acknowledge the shortcomings in their current offerings while remaining optimistic about the possibilities of community based technology. [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Ramesh: I agree with Reuben on the usefulness of Dispute Finder and Herdict. While Wikipedia (and Yelp, and a few other sites) show that sometimes, you can get useful content for free, that&#039;s not always the case. DisputeFinder didn&#039;t find many disputes when I did my regular scan of news websites, even when reading articles on topics like medical marijuana and same-sex marriage. It seems like applications like DisputeFinder and Herdict would be better if they were more automated -- if DisputeFinder automatically attached itself to controversial terms, and especially, as Reuben suggested, if Herdict was not based on self-reporting. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Franny: I agree that a threshold level of dedicated trusted users (see Vicki&#039;s comments below) resolves many problems.  I hope our guests will discuss the strategies used by DisputeFinder, or any other website initiatives dependent on a large and broad variety of user input: (1) to attract that user base; and (2) to cope during the interim period while they continue to try to attract that user base.  For example, I wonder to what extent DisputeFinder has considered building in redundancy as a means of increasing the accuracy of its results (to borrow a strategy from CrowdFlower), or perhaps some combination of automation and redundancy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Andrew: I hope the discussion of how to achieve critical mass focuses as much on instilling/spreading an ethos as it does on ways to automate the DF system. Tools don&#039;t work without the accompanying human motivation: the wiki architecture is awesome, but (see our Predictions pages) they don&#039;t necessitate anything about a page&#039;s structure, and that&#039;s where the Wikipedian ethos steps in.  No matter how passive DF/Herdict eventually allow their users to be, those users will (probably) still have to take the first step of registering, installing the plug-in etc. To do that, they have to be persuaded of the importance of the problem the tools are meant to address. Until the supposed echo chamber, &amp;quot;daily me&amp;quot; effect of Internet discourse becomes a mainstream concern, DF will not be a mainstream tool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Tyler: I completely agree with above thoughts about Herdict and DisputeFinder needing to collect a critical mass of users before becoming useful. This seems to echo the idea that wikipedia was not useful for its first several years because it did not possess a critical mass of articles. However, I think there are some differences because individual pieces of wikipedia could become useful before wikipedia as a whole in that individual articles could become independantly useful before wikipedia became as comprehensive as it is today. I don&#039;t see that Herdict or DisputeFinder have the same capability to be useful while scaling because they require users to explicitly decide to install plugins and begin using their services before any benefit can be gained by that user. Wikipedia was able to gradually grow in prominence as users occasionally found information on wikipedia that they wanted through web searches. I am wondering if Herdict or DisputeFinder can take advantage of automated solutions to increase their seemingly as-yet sparsely populated databases? For example, could web crawling robots be used to identify at least some inaccesible sites with the expectation that this list could then be pruned by users rather than expecting it to materialize entirely by user submissions? Could DisputeFinder use a web crawling robot, in conjunction with sophisticated text parsers to begin identifying at least some topics that clearly involve dispute? I expect and hope that the guests will discuss some strategies for increasing the datasets of their projects to the point that they can obtain their critical mass of users and data more quickly. [[User:TylerLacey|TylerLacey]] 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Michael: In terms of achieving critical mass for utility, herdict seems to have an additional challenge to wikipedia and DisputeFinder. When users make contributions to wikipedia or DisputeFinder, the information they provide remains useful indefinitely (for the most part). Herdict, on the other hand requires constant updating. This is entirely possible (as twitter and facebook demonstrate), but it reflects an additional challenge. I would be curious to hear if there is any data to determine what the different requirements of such different sites would be. [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Daniel: Tyler has a great point here, so maybe we should ask if the Dispute Finder team has thought of an interesting dispute to explore well enough in terms of paraphrases / arguments, so that users could experience the full potential of the software and then be lured into becoming frequent contributors. [[User:Darbix|darbix]] 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily: &lt;br /&gt;
Dispute Finder bears an inherent flaw: individuals, not algorithms, decide whom and what to trust for information. Consider the watch on your wrist. If your watch starts to get the time wrong, you might try to fix the watch. You hope and pray your watch starts giving you accurate, dependable information because you like your watch. You might even love your watch. But, if it continues to betray your trust, and the people in your trusted circle insist your watch is wrong, you give up. You decide to trust a new watch, but your new watch will probably be reminiscent of your old watch with respect to personal taste, experience, and preferences. Most people are intuitive enough (though they donât necessarily convert insights into complex conclusions about source x versus source y) to know that 120 seconds of live, relatively unedited sound on Fox News Live or MSNBC Dayside is less likely to contain factually accurate information â even if relatively unimportant, like the location of a fire, or the total number of casualties in a mass shootingâ than a compulsively edited, fact-checked tome in the Sunday NY Times magazine, the Economist, or the New Yorker. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 3.5 of the Dispute Finder document, âDetermining Trustworthy Sources,â seems a bit absurd. It actually acknowledges the marketability challenges of its own software: âUnfortunatelyâ¦the sites people actually trust are often those that share the personâs own point of view.â So, again, what is this software and what, really, is the point? Segway into âCross-cutting themes.â Save the world. How? Is Dispute Finder intended to help people sue other people for libel? Richard Jewel (now deceased) had a reasonably compelling case. Thatâs probably why he successfully sued (for libel) every organization, from CNN, to NBC, to the NY Post. All settled. He collected from each of them. But Richard Jewel didnât need help from Dispute Finder. Richard Jewel had a case. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cross-cutting themes: âChange the technology, save the world.â Okay, why not? Isnât there something else smart people at Intel and UC Berkeley could be doing to make the world better? Last November, the New York Times produced an alarming story [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html] about the food stamp program in America(ânow expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.â) Also no shortage of children in custody. Last December, the New York Times obtained â and reported on [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile.html?_r=1&amp;amp;scp=1&amp;amp;sq=new%20york%20family%20court%20juvenile%20department%20of%20justice%20youth&amp;amp;st=cse]â a âconfidential draft reportâ prepared by a task force appointed by NY gov David Paterson: âNew York Stateâs current approach fails the young people who are drawn into the system, the public whose safety it is intended to protect, and the principles of good governance that demand effective use of scarce state resources.â Story also says the situation was so bad that the DOJ, at one point, was threatening to âtake over.â &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, if Intel is interested in contributing, how about addressing real problemsâhelping real peopleâ that could affect real, collective societal change and improvement? Children and education seem like obvious places to start. Basics like hardware and mentors could go a long way. Children in poverty struggle with range of issues, including asthma, low self-esteem, obesity, and depression. Consider children in places like the South Bronx (Jonathan Kozolâs children [http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-Children-Conscience-Nation/dp/0060976977]): allocation of resources in places like this (and/or lower-middle class communities), especially from companies like Intel, could change lives; give voices to people from whom we do not often hear. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interested to hear thoughts on Internet privacy, though I&#039;m not sure adults have an expectation of privacy anywhere [http://gawker.com/5444885/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-on-your-erased-privacy-these-are-the-social-norms-now] on the Internet. If you want privacy, don&#039;t put yourself on the Internet. Finally, on the subject of online harassment, if we accept that the Internet is a public place, to what extent is it acceptable to regulate online communication, including but not limited to comments deemed &#039;offensive&#039; on blogs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Predictions. Guests will be nice. Class will be nice. Hope to hear more about Dispute Finder&#039;s business model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tyler: I would like an explanation for why the contributor of a disputed claim on DisputeFinder needs to provide a link to an article that illustrates the opposing point of view. If there are no article, isn&#039;t it still valuable to identify a claim as disputed, especially since this could break DisputeFinder&#039;s dataset building-process into two parts? I could enter a disputed claim without a link to another source and then another user, once alerted to the potential dispute could track down and enter the article. I see the argument that an issue is not actually in dispute if there is no contradictory reports of it, but I wonder if an entry into DisputeFinder should be enough to create a &amp;quot;dispute&amp;quot;, rather than requiring a link. I agree that even a blog post outlining the opposing point of view would be more helpful than a &amp;quot;dispute&amp;quot; without any link, but I&#039;m not sure that it should be a requirement.  Today I entered a disputed claim as &amp;quot;Works prepared by amazon mechanical turkers are considered works for hire under the United States Copyright Act&amp;quot; to see if DisputeFinder would highlight portions of our wiki (which does not currently have any disputed claims, according to DisputeFinder) but I was stalled when it asked for a link to a web location outlining this dispute. Should I have entered the page on this wiki where we discuss the issue? I hope that the guests discuss this aspect of the DisputeFinder process. [[Special:Contributions/68.65.169.179|68.65.169.179]] 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Tyler: Another question that came up during my lunchtime discussion of DisputeFinder with some of our classmates: is there a practical way that DisputeFinder could leverage the existing collection of topics that wikipedia has flagged as a &amp;quot;point of view&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;non-neutral&amp;quot; to boost DisputeFinder&#039;s database of disputes?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth:  Actually, I tend to think the need to cite an article is a useful safeguard.  It mirrors Wikipedia&#039;s rule that contributors can&#039;t do original research, and I think it exists for the same reason: to keep spammer-activists from simply flinging their views into these trusted systems.  It&#039;s just to easy to go around labeling hundreds of things as disputed.  Now, you could just go write a wiki on Amazon Mechanical Turk and then cite to it on dispute finder, much as anyone can publish an article on SSRN and then write a Wikipedia page, but it does provide some measure of protection (it stopped Tyler).  One alternative solution is for DisputeFinder to flag in a lighter color, or a different color, claims that are marked disputed but have no article support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Victoria: I completely agree with the former point that DisputeFinder&#039;s success is dependent on gaining a critical mass of end users. In addition to the need for more users, I think the platform is very trusting of the end users themselves. DisputeFinder allows for a lot of users to subjectively claim anything is disputed even when it begins to reach the absurd. One EscapistMagazine.com posted in June 2009, that the following topics were included on the disputed list &amp;quot;The 2009 Iran Presidential election was rigged,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Recycling is good for the environment,&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;2Pac is dead,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Dick Cheney is a robot&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Italians look good.&amp;quot; Although theoretically the idea of a marketplace of ideas works - without the appropriate robust marketplace DisputeFinder becomes a caricature of the truth-seeking function of free speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Michael: I am interested to hear the speakers from DisputeFinder describe why they believe the simple knowledge of a dispute is socially valuable. The extent to which a statement is disputed seems like it would be more valuable. I&#039;d be interested to hear if our speakers expect to include a scale of dispute to their software, such as that used in Herdict (the different colored sheep).&lt;br /&gt;
:I predict that DisputeFinder will view one of its most difficult challenges to be determining the trustworthiness of sources. Unlike CrowdFlower, DisputeFinder may not be able to simply use agreement as an accurate rubric for which user-supplied links are trustworthy and which are spam. Since the nature of the site is to highlight disagreement, it doesn&#039;t seem possible to use user agreement as the benchmark of useful data for their service. I would be interested to hear what DisputeFinder uses as its criteria for determining which data is reliable (meaning non-spam). [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Elisabeth: I&#039;m not sure why a crowd-voting system isn&#039;t appropriate, but I&#039;d be interested to hear how our speakers think it has worked.  People on both sides of the debate can vote up sources they consider most trustworthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Juan: I&#039;m interested in hearing their thoughts on the collection of disputed claims. As the material mentioned, most people who were interviewed are interested in applying Dispute Finder to particular areas that affect them. Thus, how will they collect data for areas not that popular or useful to most people, especially there are no other incentives to encourage claim creation. I guess building up community as wikipedia or herdict did might be one solution. The question is how this community can be built up. Also, I kind of feel Dispute Finder overlaps with the search services provided by Google and other search engines. If people are interested in one topic, they can always use Google or other search services to find the corroborations or objections on it. By determining trustworthy resources, can I say Dispute Finder sort of limited the available resources to people? To me, &amp;quot;trustworthy resources&amp;quot; is more like a subjective concept, everyone can has his/her own trustworthy resources. Is there a need to have a website telling us which resource is trustworthy, especially the site itself said it is a difficult tradeoff to determine the trustworthy resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sharona: I totally agree with everyone&#039;s comments about the lack of a critical mass, and I would be curious to hear how they think they could theoretically gain one. Would people actually be drawn to this the way they are to edit wikipedia pages? Is it simply a matter of a marketing strategy? Another question I had while reading the website and the other document was regarding the phrase &amp;quot;trusted source.&amp;quot; Who defines that? The users? What if people start claiming that what DisputeFinder may deem &amp;quot;unreliable&amp;quot; is a trusted source in their view? Who will stop them, and will that be antithetical to DisputeFinder&#039;s ethos?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth:  looking at all of our readings together--on Dispute Finder, new.net, and Herdict--makes me think about how we&#039;re creating an increasingly atomized web, where users have remarkably different experiences in the Internet space.  It&#039;s not just that people are accessing different content.  Some people are passively consuming stories from CNN, others are carefully sculpting an information diet from RSS feeders and DisputeFinder trusted sources, and still others are contributing to all different kinds of tasks, from tracking filtering around the world to working on SETI.  Even &amp;quot;contribution&amp;quot; work can be active or passively happening in the background (Wikipedia is active; SETI is background, and DisputeFinder and Herdict are active now but could be passive if some of the tech suggestions above are implemented).  Extensions like Readability and the popularity of mobile phone browsers make the web look totally different for different users, and if new.net takes off, it won&#039;t even be interoperable between ISPs!  The question of &amp;quot;how we interact with the internet&amp;quot; thus will become even more complex as the user experience splinters even further.  And so (dragging this mediation back to class), I would like to hear how Herdict and DisputeFinder see their audiences.  Is the vision global acceptance?  Or is it a critical mass large enough to get the job done--to identify most blocked sites and most disputes claims--and specialized use only by those who are particularly interested in the topic?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth: and one theme that connects all of these services is the need for active users.  How do we foster a culture in which people think they have a responsibility to contribute to the web (beyond even contributing pure content), instead of just using it?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=544</id>
		<title>Day 6 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=544"/>
		<updated>2010-01-12T02:26:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Daniel: Our guests will probably discuss at length the challenges that Dispute Finder and most web-based cooperative tools bump into while attempting to harness input from virtual crowds. I guess they will talk about Dispute Finderâs design difficulties, such as costs and trade-offs (between precision and recall, between user-friendliness and number / quality of features, etc). Theyâll most likely also summon stories from the interviews discussed in the document we received, perhaps to illustrate content-layer problems with measurement of &amp;quot;information sources reliability&amp;quot;; usersâ misunderstandings / trouble with logic operations; and group biases.&lt;br /&gt;
I would love to hear their views on the [http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i256/f09/lectures/RobEnnalsGuestLecture.ppt proposed use of Turks] to improve the database of disputed claims and arguments, as well as on the current biases of the disputed facts / arguments presently listed by the software.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jason: I predict that there will be a good deal of discussion of what Daniel calls the &amp;quot;user-friendliness&amp;quot; aspect of these tools - and I hope there is, because it&#039;s critical. Specifically, what is the necessary ratio between DisputeFinder or Herdict &amp;quot;passive users&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;active reporters&amp;quot; to make a project successful? I say this because both Herdict and DisputeFinder look somewhat sparsely-populated for them to be maximally-useful right now. For example, Herdict is [http://www.herdict.org/web/explore/country/CN;jsessionid=4A2D95D3EB7A8F96B073DE77D3654D53 reporting] that 2 Chinese users have reported YouTube as inaccessible. How do I interpret that? What percent of people who might know about and like Herdict in China are reporting back to Herdict? We know that Wikipedia is successful in spite of the fact that only a very small portion of readers become really regular editors - but Wikipedia is also one of the most visited sites in the world. I hope we discuss what strategies these organizations are employing to build participation for these more niche offerings. [[User:Jharrow|Jharrow]] 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Reuben: When Daniel talks about the challenges of web-based cooperative tools, my first thought is about the challenge of a achieving a critical mass.  I poked around with Dispute Finder for just over an hour this morning and during the entirety of my browsing the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, and Slate I only came across one disputed claim.  No offense to America&#039;s news media, but my guess is that what I read is more disputed than that, but that there just aren&#039;t enough people trolling the news sites and adding claims to the dispute finder database for the service to actually be that helpful yet.  Jason&#039;s point about passive users versus active reporters is important.  I too would like to hear about how to reach a critical mass and how many active users are needed in order to have a useful service.  I&#039;d also like to hear about the potential for users to participate in a more passive manner - notwithstanding the privacy issues, if Herdict could just monitor my browsing and automatically send a report whenever I come across an inaccessible website, something akin to a Last.fm for my click stream, the data would seem to be much more complete than simply recording whatever I choose to report.  Never underestimate the laziness of the average person.  My prediction is that our guests acknowledge the shortcomings in their current offerings while remaining optimistic about the possibilities of community based technology. [[User:ReubRodriguez|ReubRodriguez]] 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Ramesh: I agree with Reuben on the usefulness of Dispute Finder and Herdict. While Wikipedia (and Yelp, and a few other sites) show that sometimes, you can get useful content for free, that&#039;s not always the case. DisputeFinder didn&#039;t find many disputes when I did my regular scan of news websites, even when reading articles on topics like medical marijuana and same-sex marriage. It seems like applications like DisputeFinder and Herdict would be better if they were more automated -- if DisputeFinder automatically attached itself to controversial terms, and especially, as Reuben suggested, if Herdict was not based on self-reporting. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Franny: I agree that a threshold level of dedicated trusted users (see Vicki&#039;s comments below) resolves many problems.  I hope our guests will discuss the strategies used by DisputeFinder, or any other website initiatives dependent on a large and broad variety of user input: (1) to attract that user base; and (2) to cope during the interim period while they continue to try to attract that user base.  For example, I wonder to what extent DisputeFinder has considered building in redundancy as a means of increasing the accuracy of its results (to borrow a strategy from CrowdFlower), or perhaps some combination of automation and redundancy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Andrew: I hope the discussion of how to achieve critical mass focuses as much on instilling/spreading an ethos as it does on ways to automate the DF system. Tools don&#039;t work without the accompanying human motivation: the wiki architecture is awesome, but (see our Predictions pages) they don&#039;t necessitate anything about a page&#039;s structure, and that&#039;s where the Wikipedian ethos steps in.  No matter how passive DF/Herdict eventually allow their users to be, those users will (probably) still have to take the first step of registering, installing the plug-in etc. To do that, they have to be persuaded of the importance of the problem the tools are meant to address. Until the supposed echo chamber, &amp;quot;daily me&amp;quot; effect of Internet discourse becomes a mainstream concern, DF will not be a mainstream tool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Tyler: I completely agree with above thoughts about Herdict and DisputeFinder needing to collect a critical mass of users before becoming useful. This seems to echo the idea that wikipedia was not useful for its first several years because it did not possess a critical mass of articles. However, I think there are some differences because individual pieces of wikipedia could become useful before wikipedia as a whole in that individual articles could become independantly useful before wikipedia became as comprehensive as it is today. I don&#039;t see that Herdict or DisputeFinder have the same capability to be useful while scaling because they require users to explicitly decide to install plugins and begin using their services before any benefit can be gained by that user. Wikipedia was able to gradually grow in prominence as users occasionally found information on wikipedia that they wanted through web searches. I am wondering if Herdict or DisputeFinder can take advantage of automated solutions to increase their seemingly as-yet sparsely populated databases? For example, could web crawling robots be used to identify at least some inaccesible sites with the expectation that this list could then be pruned by users rather than expecting it to materialize entirely by user submissions? Could DisputeFinder use a web crawling robot, in conjunction with sophisticated text parsers to begin identifying at least some topics that clearly involve dispute? I expect and hope that the guests will discuss some strategies for increasing the datasets of their projects to the point that they can obtain their critical mass of users and data more quickly. [[User:TylerLacey|TylerLacey]] 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Michael: In terms of achieving critical mass for utility, herdict seems to have an additional challenge to wikipedia and DisputeFinder. When users make contributions to wikipedia or DisputeFinder, the information they provide remains useful indefinitely (for the most part). Herdict, on the other hand requires constant updating. This is entirely possible (as twitter and facebook demonstrate), but it reflects an additional challenge. I would be curious to hear if there is any data to determine what the different requirements of such different sites would be. [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Daniel: Tyler has a great point here, so maybe we should ask if the Dispute Finder team has thought of an interesting dispute to explore well enough in terms of paraphrases / arguments, so that users could experience the full potential of the software and then be lured into becoming frequent contributors. [[User:Darbix|darbix]] 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily: &lt;br /&gt;
Dispute Finder bears an inherent flaw: individuals, not algorithms, decide whom and what to trust for information. Consider the watch on your wrist. If your watch starts to get the time wrong, you might try to fix the watch. You hope and pray your watch starts giving you accurate, dependable information because you like your watch. You might even love your watch. But, if it continues to betray your trust, and the people in your trusted circle insist your watch is wrong, you give up. You decide to trust a new watch, but your new watch will probably be reminiscent of your old watch with respect to personal taste, experience, and preferences. Most people are intuitive enough (though they donât necessarily convert insights into complex conclusions about source x versus source y) to know that 120 seconds of live, relatively unedited sound on Fox News Live or MSNBC Dayside is less likely to contain factually accurate information â even if relatively unimportant, like the location of a fire, or the total number of casualties in a mass shootingâ than a compulsively edited, fact-checked tome in the Sunday NY Times magazine, the Economist, or the New Yorker. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Article 3.5 of the Dispute Finder document, âDetermining Trustworthy Sources,â seems a bit absurd. It actually acknowledges the marketability challenges of its own software: âUnfortunatelyâ¦the sites people actually trust are often those that share the personâs own point of view.â So, again, what is this software and what, really, is the point? Segway into âCross-cutting themes.â Save the world. How? Is Dispute Finder intended to help people sue other people for libel? Richard Jewel (now deceased) had a reasonably compelling case. Thatâs probably why he successfully sued (for libel) every organization, from CNN, to NBC, to the NY Post. All settled. He collected from each of them. But Richard Jewel didnât need help from Dispute Finder. Richard Jewel had a case. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cross-cutting themes: âChange the technology, save the world.â Okay, why not? Isnât there something else smart people at Intel and UC Berkeley could be doing to make the world better? Last November, the New York Times produced an alarming story [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html] about the food stamp program in America(ânow expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.â) Also no shortage of children in custody. Last December, the New York Times obtained â and reported on [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile.html?_r=1&amp;amp;scp=1&amp;amp;sq=new%20york%20family%20court%20juvenile%20department%20of%20justice%20youth&amp;amp;st=cse]â a âconfidential draft reportâ prepared by a task force appointed by NY gov David Paterson: âNew York Stateâs current approach fails the young people who are drawn into the system, the public whose safety it is intended to protect, and the principles of good governance that demand effective use of scarce state resources.â Story also says the situation was so bad that the DOJ, at one point, was threatening to âtake over.â &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, if Intel is interested in contributing, how about addressing real problemsâhelping real peopleâ that could affect real, collective societal change and improvement? Children and education seem like obvious places to start. Basics like hardware and mentors could go a long way. Children in poverty struggle with range of issues, including asthma, low self-esteem, obesity, and depression. Consider children in places like the South Bronx (Jonathan Kozolâs children [http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-Children-Conscience-Nation/dp/0060976977]): allocation of resources in places like this (and/or lower-middle class communities), especially from companies like Intel, could change lives; give voices to people from whom we do not often hear. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interested to hear thoughts on Internet privacy, though I&#039;m not sure adults have an expectation of privacy anywhere [http://gawker.com/5444885/facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-on-your-erased-privacy-these-are-the-social-norms-now] on the Internet. If you want privacy, don&#039;t put yourself on the Internet. Finally, on the subject of online harassment, if we accept that the Internet is a public place, to what extent is it acceptable to regulate online communication, including but not limited to comments deemed &#039;offensive&#039; on blogs?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Predictions. Guests will be nice. Class will be nice. Hope to hear more about Dispute Finder&#039;s business model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tyler: I would like an explanation for why the contributor of a disputed claim on DisputeFinder needs to provide a link to an article that illustrates the opposing point of view. If there are no article, isn&#039;t it still valuable to identify a claim as disputed, especially since this could break DisputeFinder&#039;s dataset building-process into two parts? I could enter a disputed claim without a link to another source and then another user, once alerted to the potential dispute could track down and enter the article. I see the argument that an issue is not actually in dispute if there is no contradictory reports of it, but I wonder if an entry into DisputeFinder should be enough to create a &amp;quot;dispute&amp;quot;, rather than requiring a link. I agree that even a blog post outlining the opposing point of view would be more helpful than a &amp;quot;dispute&amp;quot; without any link, but I&#039;m not sure that it should be a requirement.  Today I entered a disputed claim as &amp;quot;Works prepared by amazon mechanical turkers are considered works for hire under the United States Copyright Act&amp;quot; to see if DisputeFinder would highlight portions of our wiki (which does not currently have any disputed claims, according to DisputeFinder) but I was stalled when it asked for a link to a web location outlining this dispute. Should I have entered the page on this wiki where we discuss the issue? I hope that the guests discuss this aspect of the DisputeFinder process. [[Special:Contributions/68.65.169.179|68.65.169.179]] 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Tyler: Another question that came up during my lunchtime discussion of DisputeFinder with some of our classmates: is there a practical way that DisputeFinder could leverage the existing collection of topics that wikipedia has flagged as a &amp;quot;point of view&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;non-neutral&amp;quot; to boost DisputeFinder&#039;s database of disputes?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth:  Actually, I tend to think the need to cite an article is a useful safeguard.  It mirrors Wikipedia&#039;s rule that contributors can&#039;t do original research, and I think it exists for the same reason: to keep spammer-activists from simply flinging their views into these trusted systems.  It&#039;s just to easy to go around labeling hundreds of things as disputed.  Now, you could just go write a Wiki on AMT and then cite to it on dispute finder, much as anyone can publish an article on SSRN and then write a Wikipedia page, but it does provide some measure of protection (it stopped Tyler).  One alternative solution is for DisputeFinder to flag in a lighter color, or a different color, claims that are marked disputed but have no article support.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Victoria: I completely agree with the former point that DisputeFinder&#039;s success is dependent on gaining a critical mass of end users. In addition to the need for more users, I think the platform is very trusting of the end users themselves. DisputeFinder allows for a lot of users to subjectively claim anything is disputed even when it begins to reach the absurd. One EscapistMagazine.com posted in June 2009, that the following topics were included on the disputed list &amp;quot;The 2009 Iran Presidential election was rigged,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Recycling is good for the environment,&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;2Pac is dead,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Dick Cheney is a robot&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Italians look good.&amp;quot; Although theoretically the idea of a marketplace of ideas works - without the appropriate robust marketplace DisputeFinder becomes a caricature of the truth-seeking function of free speech.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Michael: I am interested to hear the speakers from DisputeFinder describe why they believe the simple knowledge of a dispute is socially valuable. The extent to which a statement is disputed seems like it would be more valuable. I&#039;d be interested to hear if our speakers expect to include a scale of dispute to their software, such as that used in Herdict (the different colored sheep).&lt;br /&gt;
:I predict that DisputeFinder will view one of its most difficult challenges to be determining the trustworthiness of sources. Unlike CrowdFlower, DisputeFinder may not be able to simply use agreement as an accurate rubric for which user-supplied links are trustworthy and which are spam. Since the nature of the site is to highlight disagreement, it doesn&#039;t seem possible to use user agreement as the benchmark of useful data for their service. I would be interested to hear what DisputeFinder uses as its criteria for determining which data is reliable (meaning non-spam). [[User:Mfeld|Mfeld]] 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Elisabeth: I&#039;m not sure why a crowd-voting system isn&#039;t appropriate, but I&#039;d be interested to hear how our speakers think it has worked.  People on both sides of the debate can vote up sources they consider most trustworthy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Juan: I&#039;m interested in hearing their thoughts on the collection of disputed claims. As the material mentioned, most people who were interviewed are interested in applying Dispute Finder to particular areas that affect them. Thus, how will they collect data for areas not that popular or useful to most people, especially there are no other incentives to encourage claim creation. I guess building up community as wikipedia or herdict did might be one solution. The question is how this community can be built up. Also, I kind of feel Dispute Finder overlaps with the search services provided by Google and other search engines. If people are interested in one topic, they can always use Google or other search services to find the corroborations or objections on it. By determining trustworthy resources, can I say Dispute Finder sort of limited the available resources to people? To me, &amp;quot;trustworthy resources&amp;quot; is more like a subjective concept, everyone can has his/her own trustworthy resources. Is there a need to have a website telling us which resource is trustworthy, especially the site itself said it is a difficult tradeoff to determine the trustworthy resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sharona: I totally agree with everyone&#039;s comments about the lack of a critical mass, and I would be curious to hear how they think they could theoretically gain one. Would people actually be drawn to this the way they are to edit wikipedia pages? Is it simply a matter of a marketing strategy? Another question I had while reading the website and the other document was regarding the phrase &amp;quot;trusted source.&amp;quot; Who defines that? The users? What if people start claiming that what DisputeFinder may deem &amp;quot;unreliable&amp;quot; is a trusted source in their view? Who will stop them, and will that be antithetical to DisputeFinder&#039;s ethos?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth:  looking at all of our readings together--on Dispute Finder, new.net, and Herdict--makes me think about how we&#039;re creating an increasingly atomized web, where users have remarkably different experiences in the Internet space.  It&#039;s not just that people are accessing different content.  Some people are passively consuming stories from CNN, others are carefully sculpting an information diet from RSS feeders and DisputeFinder trusted sources, and still others are contributing to all different kinds of tasks, from tracking filtering around the world to working on SETI.  Even &amp;quot;contribution&amp;quot; work can be active or passively happening in the background (Wikipedia is active; SETI is background, and DisputeFinder and Herdict are active now but could be passive if some of the tech suggestions above are implemented).  Extensions like Readability and the popularity of mobile phone browsers make the web look totally different for different users, and if new.net takes off, it won&#039;t even be interoperable between ISPs!  The question of &amp;quot;how we interact with the internet&amp;quot; thus will become even more complex as the user experience splinters even further.  And so (dragging this mediation back to class), I would like to hear how Herdict and DisputeFinder see their audiences.  Is the vision global acceptance?  Or is it a critical mass large enough to get the job done--to identify most blocked sites and most disputes claims--and specialized use only by those who are particularly interested in the topic?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth: and one theme that connects all of these services is the need for active users.  How do we foster a culture in which people think they have a responsibility to contribute to the web (beyond even contributing pure content), instead of just using it?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_5_Predictions&amp;diff=420</id>
		<title>Day 5 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_5_Predictions&amp;diff=420"/>
		<updated>2010-01-08T22:52:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Victoria: My prediction is that the speakers are going to be extolling the virtues of Wikipedia and explaining that although the site has gone under some transformations it is still a vibrant force. I would concede that I think it is. Most people I know still immediately turn to Wikipedia for a quick run down of a topic or an answer to a quick question. However, as time moves on the site is becoming less innovative and more standard. I would like to ask them about their understanding and personal experiences in trying to keep Wikipedia young. Moreover, having read that 85% of the contributors to Wikipedia are male I&#039;d specifically love to ask Phoebe whether she feels that the articles are written from the male gaze and lack the other gender&#039;s perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Sharona: Like Vickie, I was also struck by the statistics on the demographic breakdown, and I would love to hear their thoughts on whether they feel wikipedia really does represent a wide range of views, or more specifically (especially in the US) that of a white male. Another thing I think they will likely discuss - and probably not have a good answer for - is the question of privacy and defamation on wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. Can, or should, the website and/or its users or editors be held accountable if allegedly defamatory posts are not removed? Who makes that call? And what standards are used? It seems to me that there&#039;s no easy answer to this: while they may not run into strictly legal issues, it could definitely affect reader&#039;s trust in the information or fear that they too are vulnerable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bruno: I expect our guests to focus their comments on the strategies Wikipedia is adopting to address two of what seems to be the main problems of the project: (i) quality/accuracy of its articles, and (ii) issues concerning vandalism. After reading the materials, I was struck by the fact that Wikipedia doesn&#039;t seem to be worried about increasing its user base. The increasing amount of rules, the hostility of veteran users to newbies and the efforts to attract more scientists to participate in the project suggest that in fact they would be interested in less, but more qualified participation. Just like the attitude of our guest from CrowdFlower, perhaps a sort of procrastination to address a problem that is not yet so concrete might be operating here: with over 40 thousand contributors it&#039;s not clear when more means actually less.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Sheel: I&#039;d be interested in hearing Wikimedia&#039;s reaction to this: what if people started using CrowdFlower or MechanicalTurk, if they don&#039;t already, to pay people 10 cents or so to go edit Wikipedia pages?  I know they weren&#039;t okay with MyWikiBiz, but this is much more under the radar.  Finally, I&#039;d like to hear where the debate is on inclusionists v. exclusionists (meaning those who want to produce the &#039;integrity&#039; of the encyclopedia and shy away from what may be deemed as frivolous by some portion of editors).  My guess is that there is still no concrete answer---if enough editors are passionate about editing/creating a new page, then it&#039;ll stay.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Andrew: I also hope to hear some discussion about the intersection between Wikipedia and paid crowdsourcing. The possibilities here aren&#039;t all nefarious (what about an mturk task to fix Wikitypos?)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel: In addition to the topics above, I expect a discussion about the possible increase in vulnerability Wikipedia faces at the content layer, on par with a less dynamic environment. Since most pages are already done, at least in the English version, editors may feel less motivated to monitor existing, but seldom edited pages which are not on the &amp;quot;watch list&amp;quot;. As a consequence, they can be more easily twisted by outsiders. In connection with that issue, I guess that our guests will raise the question &amp;quot;how does it feel to be a Wikipedian?&amp;quot; - and try to describe the community feeling from the perspective of insiders, and the challenges to bring more people in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Franny:  Main problems within the wikipedia bubble are summarized well above - I think that we also need to examine the problem of how to improve/encourage the transfer of wikipedia&#039;s benefits (e.g. generativity and sense of community) outside of the wikipedia microcosm.  To that end, I hope that our guests will discuss their experiences with similar applications and initiatives (e.g. citizendium, etc.), and provide their views of the successes or weaknesses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jason: Great point by Franny; I too hope they address how Wikipedia&#039;s success can to other initiatives. After all, I&#039;ve been struck by just how &#039;&#039;sui generis&#039;&#039; Wikipedia seems to be, and now that we are in 2010, I think we need to start asking whether Wikipedia is an outlier or whether its principles of both creation and governance can really generalize to other projects. Of course, as I write that, I find myself wondering whether free and open source software is another example of the Wikipedia model. Further, I wonder what they think of as other really good candidates for adopting Wikipedia&#039;s new form of participatory self-government. For instance, some of us have been laughing about Stanford&#039;s new, fairly permissive policies when it comes to handing in papers at the end of the semester (you can still pass the . Could these new policies have been created by the Stanford community via wiki? What would the outcome have been?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Juan: I would like to hear their opinions on&lt;br /&gt;
1. How to deal with vandalism and spams while keeping the generativity of Wikipedia as much as possible. Now they&#039;ve created several restrictions to lower of the possibility of attacks by vandals and spams, such as blocking IP addresses of repeat offenders, using full protection and semi-protection functions to restrict editing of certain pages. However, these restrictions limits free editability and thus seems jeopardize its generativity. &lt;br /&gt;
2. The prospect of wikipedia in China. How will it compete with its local counterpart Hudong. Unlike wikipedia, Hudong rewards top contributors with gifts ranging from post cards to MP3 players, and offers some features that complies with Chinese users&#039; habits. Recently, it even launched it partnership with some popular overseas Chinese website, making its first steps to expand into overseas Chinese market. What is wikipedia&#039;s strategy facing this situation? Is there any possibility to establish some cooperation or strategic partnership between these two on-line encyclopedias? &lt;br /&gt;
3. Sustainable problem. Dedicated editor may leave because of life cycle change, motivation by other UGC websites, tire of anti-threat work, and etc. How will wikipedia attract new editors and keep them?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ethan: In addition to all the issues mentioned above, I&#039;d like to know how Wikipedia addresses censorship efforts from various governments. We talked about how the Chinese government forced Google to remove certain search results (e.g. falun gong) and I&#039;m wondering if Wikipedia receives such requests. Censorship doesn&#039;t necessarily have to be so nefarious-- it&#039;s illegal to deny holocaust in 13 countries according to Wikipedia, truth is not an absolute defense to defamation in Korea, etc.  How will Wikipedia abide by local laws when pressed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth: I predict we&#039;ll hear that Wikipedia&#039;s editor corp is either growing or sufficiently large already. But I&#039;d like to solicit some ideas on how active editors&#039; time could be better leveraged if numbers do start dropping. Some of the articles we read suggested that editors spent a lot of time bickering over minor points--perfecting one page while ignoring a slew of others. Are there ways to eliminate the bureaucracy and consciously turn to a state that maximizes pages edited at least once vs. pages edited by 100 people? On the subject of growing pains more generally, can they point to examples of online communities that have overcome the problem they&#039;re having -- an influx of newcomers -- that inspire them?&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;d also like to hear whether the donation strategy is feasible for funding Wikipedia long-term, or if they&#039;re planning on using other Wikimedia projects to fund some of it, or if there&#039;s some other theory.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=419</id>
		<title>Day 6 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=419"/>
		<updated>2010-01-08T22:51:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: Removing all content from page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=416</id>
		<title>Day 6 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&amp;diff=416"/>
		<updated>2010-01-08T21:45:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: New page: Elisabeth:  I predict we&amp;#039;ll hear that Wikipedia&amp;#039;s editor corp is either growing or sufficiently large already.  But I&amp;#039;d like to solicit some ideas on how active editors&amp;#039; time could be bett...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Elisabeth:  I predict we&#039;ll hear that Wikipedia&#039;s editor corp is either growing or sufficiently large already.  But I&#039;d like to solicit some ideas on how active editors&#039; time could be better leveraged if numbers do start dropping.  Some of the articles we read suggested that editors spent a lot of time bickering over minor points--perfecting one page while ignoring a slew of others.  Are there ways to eliminate the bureaucracy and consciously turn to a state that maximizes pages edited at least once vs. pages edited by 100 people?  On the subject of growing pains more generally, can they point to examples of online communities that have overcome the problem they&#039;re having -- an influx of newcomers -- that inspire them?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;d also like to hear whether the donation strategy is feasible for funding Wikipedia long-term, or if they&#039;re planning on using other Wikimedia projects to fund some of it, or if there&#039;s some other theory.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Thoughts&amp;diff=412</id>
		<title>Day 3 Thoughts</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Thoughts&amp;diff=412"/>
		<updated>2010-01-08T19:04:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Tyler: I am wondering if the terms in AMT&#039;s conditions of use that works prepared by turkers are to be considered works for hire would be considered valid. My initial instinct is that it would not necessarily be so.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: To paraphrase, the Copyright Act defines a work for hire as (17 U.S.C. 101):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* 1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment&lt;br /&gt;
** The factors to make determination were listed in the CCNV v Reid case (790 U.S. 730, 1989)&lt;br /&gt;
*** The two most important factors are provision of employee benefits and tax treatment (from Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857, 1992)&lt;br /&gt;
* OR 2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work if:&lt;br /&gt;
** 1. category: is one of:&lt;br /&gt;
*** part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work&lt;br /&gt;
*** a translation&lt;br /&gt;
*** a supplementary work â adjunct to a work made by another author&lt;br /&gt;
*** a compilation&lt;br /&gt;
*** an instructional text â systematic instructional activities&lt;br /&gt;
*** a test&lt;br /&gt;
*** answer material for a test&lt;br /&gt;
*** an atlas&lt;br /&gt;
** 2. intent: if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire&lt;br /&gt;
must fit into one of the 8 categories to be a contracted work made for hire (p132)&lt;br /&gt;
Most work produced for HITs would not seem to fall into either of these categories.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Michael: I think many works produced through HITs are going to be considered compilations or collective works. Certainly David&#039;s Sheep or 100 Dollar Bill are compilations so long as they are taken as a whole. Even in any attempt to monetize the individual elements, the Turk Participation Agreement states that any works which cannot be considered works for hire are assigned to the requester. (full text copied below)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Section 3(a): &amp;quot;As a Provider, the Requester for whom you provide Services is your client, and as such, you agree that the work product of any Services you perform is deemed a &amp;quot;work made for hire&amp;quot; for the benefit of the Requester, and all ownership rights, including worldwide intellectual property rights, will vest with the Requester immediately upon your performance of the Service. To the extent any such rights do not vest in Requester under applicable law, you hereby assign or exclusively grant (without the right to any compensation) all right, title and interest, including all intellectual property rights, to such work product to Requester.&amp;quot; [https://www.mturk.com/mturk/conditionsofuse The full policy can be found here.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Jason: Michael just sort of stole my mojo - I was about to say a similar thing - but Tyler, I guess I too don&#039;t see why you think HITs are not works-for-hire under test 2. Take the book about cats: it seems to me that Bjoern specifically ordered those stories for his compilation, which would fall under the rule. I guess there could be a problem of asymmetry if both parties need to know that they work is being commissioned, since in many cases only the commissioner might know what it&#039;s being used for. But given the Mechanical Turk terms of service that Michael reproduces above - which probably constitutes a &amp;quot;written instrument&amp;quot; - I think the Turker would be hard-pressed to argue that he had zero notice, even if he didn&#039;t know specifically what his work would be used for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Andrew: I think there&#039;s certainly enough wiggle room in the words &amp;quot;specially ordered or commissioned&amp;quot; to support a claim that the AMT contract does not effect WMFH status, at least in some cases. Take the cats book: When it was ordered, Bjorn himself didn&#039;t know what he was going to do with the cats when he got them. How could he argue that he had &amp;quot;specially ordered or commissioned&amp;quot; them for that compilation at the time of the contract? More generally, I think the &#039;meeting of the minds&#039; aspect is more important than Jason suggests, given that it&#039;s the basis of so much doctrine in contract interpretation. That is, I think it&#039;s an open question whether a task which the performer does not know to have a certain purpose can be said to be &amp;quot;specially ordered or commissioned&amp;quot; for that purpose with regard to the written instrument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sharona: While I agree with Jason and Michael that this is probably a work made for hire, do you think this may run into contracts of adhesion problems? Or, do you think if the average turker was aware of what his &amp;quot;original&amp;quot; (after all, to be copyrightable, it must be original) work would be used for, he would have agreed to the Participation Agreement? Does it matter?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Tyler: To follow up on my original thought, I agree that an argument could be made for HITs to be WMFH, but I see big problems with the &amp;quot;specially ordered or commissioned&amp;quot; language as Andrew mentioned. Also, I&#039;m not sure mention in the terms of service would qualify as a written instrument signed by both parties.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Jason: Hmmm, that&#039;s interesting. After doing a bit more reading, I agree that the WMFH requirements are a bit stricter than I thought they were, so I do see your point, even though I stand by the view that the cat book contributions likely qualify as works made for hire. Maybe we need to find a HIT that becomes a creative work and then sue the compiler for copyright violation to find out? Sure, it&#039;d be an ironic copyright suit coming from this group, but we can work around that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Victoria: I think what bothers me most about Ub. Hum. Comp. through tools like Mechanical Turk and re-Captcha is the lack of transparency. I think a lot of the fear about these programs - that lead to the Iranian hypo stem from a lack of transparency. The task master is not required to say what the micro task is for. However, what I found to be a fascinating comment last night in response to this came from Bjoern. After publishing the cat book he said he asked a test group if it was OK to publish the book without asking first. Bjoern reported that the Turkers seemed to be OK with it. I wonder if it is just the non-Turkers (like myself) that have a problem with the lack of transparency and dream up these dystopic problems. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Secondly in addition to transparency I have a problem with the micro-tasking. Although Aaron&#039;s artwork is completely beautiful - Crowdflower kind of makes me feel uneasy at times - especially when thinking that it could eventually be tapped into on an IPhone app during a person&#039;s idle time and that a security guard is doing it while he is supposed to be engaged in surveillance. By making the tasks so short and small Turk infuses money-making into every aspect of life. It makes everything a cost-benefit analysis. Should I go to the beach and read a Magazine or make money. Should I stand in line and think about what I have to cook later or make money? Should I spend time with my family or make money?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Juan: I&#039;m thinking the &amp;quot;addiction&amp;quot; problem Zittrain mentioned. From the requesters&#039; perspective, they want to come up with some interesting idea to attract people to work on it. The more attractive the idea, the more time people might be willing to contribute. Like the ESP game, some people spend more than 20 hours a week on it, almost &amp;quot;work&amp;quot; as a full time employee. The downside is &amp;quot;addiction&amp;quot;. However, the good thing is people contribute while they are playing. To put it another way, human computing collects human intelligence which would have been wasted on meaningless on-line surfing. Especially for those countries with a large population like China, human computing can make use of a large amount of human resources. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another interesting thing is the responsibility of Ubicomp sites. Lukas said they will not accept works to spam other one&#039;s website. How about political abuse? Transparency may be one solution, because users would be given the opportunity to judge the social value and choose to walk away. Should there be some code of conduct governing the activities of Ubicomp sites? How can we make sure Ubicomp sites will follow the code of conduct?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheel: To be honest, I was surprised that Lukas cared about monitoring the customers (i.e. those requesting services to be performed) at all.  Sure, there are plenty of ethical issues as mentioned above and as talked about, but doesn&#039;t it make sense from a business perspective to not spent capital on monitoring something for which there is no legal reason to monitor?  I feel like the more he claims to say that he is monitoring, the more the public may demand and expect monitoring.  It makes more sense to me for Crowdflower to be like YouTube or eBay; in other words, if content is so obviously illegal (like child porn videos on YouTube or selling presidential inauguration tickets on eBay) then it should be taken down upon notice, but otherwise it should be left up and not monitored.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth: A lot of our concerns are quite paternalistic, and it&#039;s hard to imagine what appropriate legal solutions would be.  I don&#039;t know much about labor law in this country, but I think we mostly try to regulate minimum wage and truly hazardous working conditions.  Regulation of addiction issues or mind-factory issues would really be a brave new world.  I left class more interested in providing market solutions for workers who like microwork, but want away around some of the downsides -- for instance, a Crowdflower-like service that filtered tasks for workers, giving them access to better tasks and allows them to carry their reputations with them.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_4_Predictions&amp;diff=372</id>
		<title>Day 4 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_4_Predictions&amp;diff=372"/>
		<updated>2010-01-07T18:53:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Amanda: I am very interested to hear Chuck&#039;s take on the relationship between the government, large corporations like Microsoft, and the defcon-attending hacker community (like the L0pht group mentioned in the Wired article). Is the government receptive to both groups? I imagine the relationship specifically between the hacker community and the government can become tense because the interests of both groups is not exactly aligned and is sometimes conflicting. Have they been able to successfully work together around a common threat like cybersecurity? While I imagine the government often tries to recruit from the hacker community, and I&#039;m interested to hear where they draw the lines legally as far as subversive behavior within the hacker community (ie do they bend the rules for the sake of potential advances in cybersecurity?).&lt;br /&gt;
:Of course there are great advances yet to be made in the relationship between white-hat hackers and corporations like Microsoft.  Skepticism abounds from both sides for obvious reasons, as well as entrenched interests and preconceptions based on past interactions (&amp;quot;Hackers are simply criminals&amp;quot;, or on the other side &amp;quot;Microsoft is The Man&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Tyler: To follow up on the above predictions, I am interested in hearing Chuck describe what he feels is the proper balance between government and private corporations dealing with cybersecurity. This may be an actual allocation of roles, or more of a question about how much of private industry&#039;s culture of innovation and rapid change can be transplanted into the government. Professor Goldsmith painted a picture where the government is not, and is unable to, secure the cyber-interests of the United States so when we hear that 90% of US military traffic runs through private networks, are we shocked that this number is so high or that it is not closer to 100%?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Elisabeth: I&#039;m also interested in exploring this idea of transplanting &amp;quot;the private industry&#039;s culture of innovation and rapid change&amp;quot; into government.  When I read government documents, I&#039;m struck by how little they actually say--there&#039;s a lot of forming a vision to have a strategic plan to nurture partnerships that draw on core competencies.  On the other hand, I was impressed by the number of actual ideas that David Clark and the participants in the Centra Technology Cyber Compendium proposed.  How can the government provide the resources and permission for private companies (or actors?) to start actually trying out these ideas, instead of having everything devolve into meetings about process?  (see the Cyber compendium doc, starting on page 87, for some more musings on these questions.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vickie: I&#039;m going to dovetail from Amanda&#039;s comment and say that I think Chuck is going to speak more specifically about the ID program he was talking about the other day as a possible solution to cybersecurity. Just as in the Wired article - identification solves a large percent of the problem, mostly through accountability. However, this seems too Orwellian for my blood. Unlike a passport that is shown in person - a computer ID is never going to be checked person to person. The computer will always be the intermediary. Moreover, this type of program may deter people from doing things on the Internet that they normally would do - if it wasn&#039;t anonymous. Visit certain political sites, fetish sites etc. etc. At what point is our fear balanced by our need for an Internet that is not being surveyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ramesh: I wonder what Chuck would say are the benefits to anonymity on the internet, and whether they are outweighed by the security risks. It seems like there could be a creditable argument saying just that. Also, I wonder about problems in scaling up ID programs -- one would assume that many countries would not participate, but if desirable content could only be accessed by an ID, perhaps consumers would then demand their nations also issue internet IDs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Elisabeth: easier IDing creates problems specifically in repressive political regimes, and would make GNI&#039;s work more difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hector: Some of Chuck&#039;s points from his remarks on Tuesday that stuck with me most were the strengthening of internet identification and alternative networks that use something else than TCP. I hope that he elaborates on the possible applications of the latter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lien: I&#039;m very interested to hear (i) what Chuck thinks the biggest cybersecurity risk is that Microsoft and other simular major private companies face and (ii) how the company is prepared for attack on its system and will react on it. I however predict he&#039;s not gonna answer that question...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reuben: On Tuesday we spent a great deal of time on the attribution problem of cybersecurity which is related to deterrence and retaliation.  I&#039;d like to hear more about that, but I&#039;d also like to hear about how we shore up our own defenses and incentivize security.  I&#039;ll be interested to hear who Chuck thinks should be responsible for security.  There is a dilemma for a company like Microsoft that may not want to have the burden of cybersecurity thrust upon them, but may also resist government mandates and control.  I think Chuck will probably recognize that both public and private sector have a role to play, but he will emphasize the need for government to provide more leadership in the area.&lt;br /&gt;
: Daniel: If Chuck details public and private strategies, I expect him to talk much more about what Microsoft has proposed to other industry players than about governmental talks. My guess is that he will also reiterate a preference for diplomatic cooperation between firms, stressing the limitations of naming and shaming (as with GNI, when nobody discussed the tainted past of the companies that were not present on Tuesday). Finally, I would bet a lesser amount on his discussing long-term solutions for users to be more aware of security risks and more reactive to perceived security flaws / reports that do not harm primarily that specific user.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason: Especially since we have already had some discussion on the security issue, I think the class will be able to offer some interesting solutions for problems that exist pretty high-up in the stack, like user behavior, software, ID schemes, and other things that happen at the end node. But I predict that we&#039;ll be somewhat flummoxed about what&#039;s going on and what to do about the fundamental nature of the network, like the implications of the stuff that Clark was talking about in [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 his talk] that we listened to. I certainly am - though hopefully we&#039;ll make a bit of headway in class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michael: Though not quite a prediction, I would like to hear Chuck&#039;s thoughts on whether cybersecurity issues can be solved incrementally or whether there needs to be a comprehensive scheme to take care of many problems at once. We touched on this question on during the second class, but it never really got answered. My guess is that Chuck will say comprehensive change is impractical and the internet will have to continue to rely on the procrastination principle.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_4_Predictions&amp;diff=370</id>
		<title>Day 4 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_4_Predictions&amp;diff=370"/>
		<updated>2010-01-07T18:50:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Amanda: I am very interested to hear Chuck&#039;s take on the relationship between the government, large corporations like Microsoft, and the defcon-attending hacker community (like the L0pht group mentioned in the Wired article). Is the government receptive to both groups? I imagine the relationship specifically between the hacker community and the government can become tense because the interests of both groups is not exactly aligned and is sometimes conflicting. Have they been able to successfully work together around a common threat like cybersecurity? While I imagine the government often tries to recruit from the hacker community, and I&#039;m interested to hear where they draw the lines legally as far as subversive behavior within the hacker community (ie do they bend the rules for the sake of potential advances in cybersecurity?).&lt;br /&gt;
:Of course there are great advances yet to be made in the relationship between white-hat hackers and corporations like Microsoft.  Skepticism abounds from both sides for obvious reasons, as well as entrenched interests and preconceptions based on past interactions (&amp;quot;Hackers are simply criminals&amp;quot;, or on the other side &amp;quot;Microsoft is The Man&amp;quot;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Tyler: To follow up on the above predictions, I am interested in hearing Chuck describe what he feels is the proper balance between government and private corporations dealing with cybersecurity. This may be an actual allocation of roles, or more of a question about how much of private industry&#039;s culture of innovation and rapid change can be transplanted into the government. Professor Goldsmith painted a picture where the government is not, and is unable to, secure the cyber-interests of the United States so when we hear that 90% of US military traffic runs through private networks, are we shocked that this number is so high or that it is not closer to 100%?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Elisabeth: I&#039;m also interested in exploring this idea of transplanting &amp;quot;the private industry&#039;s culture of innovation and rapid change&amp;quot; into government.  When I read government documents, I&#039;m struck by how little they actually say--there&#039;s a lot of forming a vision to have a strategic plan to nurture partnerships that draw on core competencies.  On the other hand, I was impressed by the number of actual ideas that David Clark and the participants in the Centra Technology Cyber Compendium proposed.  How can the government provide the resources and permission for private companies (or actors?) to start actually trying out these ideas, instead of having everything devolve into meetings about process?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vickie: I&#039;m going to dovetail from Amanda&#039;s comment and say that I think Chuck is going to speak more specifically about the ID program he was talking about the other day as a possible solution to cybersecurity. Just as in the Wired article - identification solves a large percent of the problem, mostly through accountability. However, this seems too Orwellian for my blood. Unlike a passport that is shown in person - a computer ID is never going to be checked person to person. The computer will always be the intermediary. Moreover, this type of program may deter people from doing things on the Internet that they normally would do - if it wasn&#039;t anonymous. Visit certain political sites, fetish sites etc. etc. At what point is our fear balanced by our need for an Internet that is not being surveyed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ramesh: I wonder what Chuck would say are the benefits to anonymity on the internet, and whether they are outweighed by the security risks. It seems like there could be a creditable argument saying just that. Also, I wonder about problems in scaling up ID programs -- one would assume that many countries would not participate, but if desirable content could only be accessed by an ID, perhaps consumers would then demand their nations also issue internet IDs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Elisabeth: easier IDing creates problems specifically in repressive political regimes, and would make GNI&#039;s work more difficult.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hector: Some of Chuck&#039;s points from his remarks on Tuesday that stuck with me most were the strengthening of internet identification and alternative networks that use something else than TCP. I hope that he elaborates on the possible applications of the latter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lien: I&#039;m very interested to hear (i) what Chuck thinks the biggest cybersecurity risk is that Microsoft and other simular major private companies face and (ii) how the company is prepared for attack on its system and will react on it. I however predict he&#039;s not gonna answer that question...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reuben: On Tuesday we spent a great deal of time on the attribution problem of cybersecurity which is related to deterrence and retaliation.  I&#039;d like to hear more about that, but I&#039;d also like to hear about how we shore up our own defenses and incentivize security.  I&#039;ll be interested to hear who Chuck thinks should be responsible for security.  There is a dilemma for a company like Microsoft that may not want to have the burden of cybersecurity thrust upon them, but may also resist government mandates and control.  I think Chuck will probably recognize that both public and private sector have a role to play, but he will emphasize the need for government to provide more leadership in the area.&lt;br /&gt;
: Daniel: If Chuck details public and private strategies, I expect him to talk much more about what Microsoft has proposed to other industry players than about governmental talks. My guess is that he will also reiterate a preference for diplomatic cooperation between firms, stressing the limitations of naming and shaming (as with GNI, when nobody discussed the tainted past of the companies that were not present on Tuesday). Finally, I would bet a lesser amount on his discussing long-term solutions for users to be more aware of security risks and more reactive to perceived security flaws / reports that do not harm primarily that specific user.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason: Especially since we have already had some discussion on the security issue, I think the class will be able to offer some interesting solutions for problems that exist pretty high-up in the stack, like user behavior, software, ID schemes, and other things that happen at the end node. But I predict that we&#039;ll be somewhat flummoxed about what&#039;s going on and what to do about the fundamental nature of the network, like the implications of the stuff that Clark was talking about in [http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/sl20090304 his talk] that we listened to. I certainly am - though hopefully we&#039;ll make a bit of headway in class.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michael: Though not quite a prediction, I would like to hear Chuck&#039;s thoughts on whether cybersecurity issues can be solved incrementally or whether there needs to be a comprehensive scheme to take care of many problems at once. We touched on this question on during the second class, but it never really got answered. My guess is that Chuck will say comprehensive change is impractical and the internet will have to continue to rely on the procrastination principle.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Predictions&amp;diff=338</id>
		<title>Day 3 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Predictions&amp;diff=338"/>
		<updated>2010-01-07T02:15:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1- &#039;&#039;labor rights&#039;&#039; â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2- workersâ new &#039;&#039;expectation of complete anonymity&#039;&#039;, that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones). Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3- the &#039;&#039;use of UHC for complex, creative tasks&#039;&#039;, analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the tasks].&lt;br /&gt;
: Andrew: Since at least some of our guests tonight are &amp;quot;creatives&amp;quot;, I hope to hear some discussion about the relationship between full-time freelancers and websites that crowdsource complex, creative tasks (e.g. Worth1000, [http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php iStockPhoto]). At a Berkman lunch last spring, [http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/ Jeff Howe] cited a [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1122462 study] that showed only 4% of iStockPhoto sellers derived their primary income from the site. As the site and its peers begin to dominate the market for stock photography, what happens to the livelihoods of those who depended on stock photography for a living? Protectionist worries like this parallel those about outsourcing more generally and are vulnerable to the same counters about progress and efficient markets; I hope some of those arguments play out tonight. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michael: Since two of our guests have used UHC for artistic projects, I expect one or both of them will respond to some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cult_of_the_Amateur/ Cult of the Amateur]-style criticisms. I am especially interested to hear whether our speakers think UHC improves the quality of creative/design work that can be accomplished or aggregated from UHC or whether it represents a possible step backward from looking to established professionals for this kind of work. Based on the backgrounds of the speakers, I would imagine Bjoern Hartman and Aaron Koblin will argue that UHC presents the possibility for improvement over the previous paradigm of established professionals. I imagine one or more of the speakers may believe that UHC doesn&#039;t really represent a change in quality of such higher level work, but just a difference in kind. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&#039;t know if any of our guests plan on discussing this topic, but I would be especially interested to hear their perspectives on UHC&#039;s effect on the morality of work done. Anonymity on the internet can sometimes remove users&#039; filters of social convention and politeness. So UHC might make it easier for users of Mechanical Turk or CrowdFlower to do work (either voluntarily or unknowingly) that would be morally dubious. There also seems to be a lot of noise in the Mechanical Turk system especially -- a lot of scams rather than true HIT tasks. A possible solution would be to use the existing Mechanical Turk or CrowdFlower functionality for users to rank the morality of the various tasks and provide marginally greater pay or benefits for tasks with higher moral/utility rankings. But I would be interested to hear to what extent our guests think this is a problem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramesh: I predict that the founders of human computing websites will be more focused on the technology and potential of the websites and may have a blind spot for the legal issues that may be raised by UHC (applicability of minimum wage and other laws) while as law students, we may naturally focus on the legal issues implicated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Tyler: I agree that Lukas is obviously very excited about the technology and the potential of his website and similar websites. However, I believe that the &amp;quot;blind spot&amp;quot; that Ramesh predicts will be more of a &amp;quot;worrisome spot&amp;quot;. I think Lukas will be extremely worried about the legal implications concerning products in his space. I think a lot of this worry is justified since it is likely unsettled or unclear law that even an experienced employment lawyer could only guess about, and it I think Lukas may be kept up at night by the potential for new or clarified law to derail his project. I suspect that Lukas will have attempted a risk analysis of his business plan with respect to legal risks, but have had great difficulty because of the challenges associated with assigning probabilities and magnitudes to the risks that he faces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, perhaps the founders of UHC websites will see them simply as a continuation of current trends, especially the increasing numbers of contractors in the labor force of large companies and governments and the outsourcing of call-center (and increasingly higher-skilled) jobs overseas. Does UHC present any problems that are different from the current trends? What role can employment and labor law play in a world where increasing numbers of workers are &amp;quot;independent contractors&amp;quot; or even Mechanical Turks? Will technology re-enact Lochner?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Franny:&lt;br /&gt;
Given the guest list, I diplomatically disagree with Daniel (and agree with Ramesh) and would expect these guests to address the positive potential and advantages of human computing applications into business, arts and culture, as well as the benefits available through this new type of labour force with built-in autonomy.  As libertarian as I may be in my views, I agree with Daniel that there is a real possibility that UHC can develop into a last resort for unskilled workers to earn income in order to survive.  I just don&#039;t think that the negative aspects will be the focus of today&#039;s session.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also be interested to hear our guests&#039; thoughts on whether UHC can be applied to tasks in which sensitive information is involved, and if so, how could private content be protected?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jason: Totally agree with Franny here. I was at first somewhat surprised that in the talk that Lukas gave at TechCruch 50 there was zero discussion of any of the legal aspects of this (no one asked, &amp;quot;Um, do you have to withhold taxes from the workers?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;What if it turned out that someone was a child?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Won&#039;t your business model be ruined if it turns out you have to pay taxes for not providing health insurance to these people?&amp;quot; or anything along those lines) - but, of course, I forgot that I&#039;m a law student and that&#039;s not the lens through which they are viewing this technology. Faced with a room of (mostly) lawyers, these questions will obviously come more the fore than they were there, but I suspect that the considerable advantages and potential of this type of work will dominate the discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Reuben: I wonder how feasible it is to actually make any real money as a mechanical turk.  All of the tasks I tried took me at least a few minutes to read the instructions and then a little bit of time to actually perform the task.  I suppose if someone did the same repetitive task over and over it would cut down on the amount of downtime and you could more quickly make some money, but at $.02 a task (which seems to be a going rate), even if you spent as little as 30 seconds on each HIT, it works out to $2.40 an hour.  You need to pay about $.07 a task to add to the basic minimum wage.  I see how the employers/taskmasters benefit, but aside from the novelty, I don&#039;t see any real benefit for the turkers.  I&#039;d love to hear from Lukas what the average worker makes doing CrowdFlower tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
::Hector: Yes I&#039;m also very interested in seeing some numbers. Do they have any system for flagging usage? First, setting aside fair wage issues, does anyone do this for 40 hrs a week? If so, then many of our worries can be concretely identified and addressed. Check out this article showing relative sweatshop rates in different countries: [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369 Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards]&lt;br /&gt;
::Elisabeth:  This isn&#039;t scientific, but here&#039;s a [http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2009/07/05/can-you-actually-earn-reasonable-money-from-mechanical-turk/ personal finance blogger] on making minimum wage on AMT.  He thinks it&#039;s possible if you take qualification tests and can write quickly.  In my limited experience, I tend to agree that it&#039;s possible (and recall that commuting/wardrobe/etc expenses are nonexistent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Amanda: I think the incentive structure around these sites (non-monetary incentives) is really interesting because I still don&#039;t know where to draw the line between UGC and HITs - for example, when I post a review on Yelp, I don&#039;t own it and they are making money off of what I post (indirectly), and yet they don&#039;t pay me and I don&#039;t expect to be paid.  I saw the Crowdflower presentation live this year and the response I think they&#039;ll have to the minimum wage question is that this work is all on-demand, you can do the work whenever you want to - that opt-in element makes it somewhat different than a traditional employer-employee relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Elisabeth: A related question is whether the popularity of paid-crowd sourced material will drive out unpaid work like Yelp.  I don&#039;t think Yelp could be replaced by a series of HITs (what entity would pay for it?), but if people can immediately monetize their time, they may be less willing to do free tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Juan: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By doing quality control and tracking the quality history of workers, Crowdflower moves one step closer to a real employer. How will it and other human computing websites deal with labor law issues, such as employment relationship, jurisdiction conflict, non-compete agreement, anti-discrimination, disability, leave time, wage and hour requirements, and etc. Also, building up workers&#039; career path, balancing between monitoring and privacy intrusion, disclosing information for workers to evaluate the moral value and giving them the opportunity to opt out, shall be new problems in the cyberspace. Besides, this paid work on-line may have an impact on those contributions without payments. How will we address this issue to make sure people will have incentives to embark on free works. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I want to hear is whether UHC will develop verticals like the traditional industries. How will it develop those verticals not suitable for on-line outsourcing per its nature?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheel: The &#039;quality history of workers&#039; that Juan alluded to is particularly interesting to me.  Crowdflower seems to integrate the &#039;reputation&#039; of workers in ways that Mechanical Turk doesn&#039;t do for its HITs.  I&#039;d like to hear Lukas&#039;s thoughts on this mechanism---how easy is it for users who have a low reputation to just start all over, taking the good (long history with website) away from the bad (similar to the online reputation possibilities that JZ mentioned in his book)?  Does CrowdFlower only track user names in this manner?  Also, would Crowdflower ever consider having tasks cost a higher amount for the vendor with the stipulation that only those with a certain reputation will be able to perform them?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My prediction is that the reputation system will be naturally brought about in conversation when Lukas is describing his company as his &#039;competitive advantage&#039;.  He will probably say that there isn&#039;t a need to have tasks cost a higher amount for the services of those with a good reputation (if the question is posed) because the service is inherently reliable as it can recognize spammers from truly competent workers.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sharona: I agree with Franny and Ramesh - I think the speakers will generally focus more on the positive contributions these types of sites can offer - the innovation from crowd sourcing, the efficiency, the specialization - and less concern over the legal issues. One thing I would like to hear is whether they think these tasks will continue to be performed by US residents, or how quickly they will also be outsourced to English speaking (or non-English speaking) people across the world looking for menial labor especially. Another thing to consider is how or if people could actually make a career out of doing tasks online, or whether it is just something to supplement another job. How will things like health benefits or insurance policies come into play for these kinds of workers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yosuke:&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the majority opinion, I think guests will not really focus on negative aspects of ubiquitous human computing, such as potential problems of child labors in developing countries, as JZ stated in [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/21#41 this paragraph in his book]. While I guess they will address some amazingly positive aspects of UHC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vickie: My guess here is that the &amp;quot;creative types&amp;quot; as Andrew called them are going to be psyched about the creative potential of mechanical turk but less satisfied by the &amp;quot;mundane tasks&amp;quot; that are fueled through the programs (as stated by Aaron Koblin in this video http://vimeo.com/3199933). I believe Koblin and Hartmann are not going to be happy to hear as much about CrowdFlower. Koblin, specifically said in his presentation in this video that he limited the amount of times his contributors could use HITs for his art projects. Unlike CrowdFlower Koblin isn&#039;t looking to use Turkers as steadfast blinded workers. He seems very conscious of all the Marxist qualms with the program.&lt;br /&gt;
:Hector: From my layman&#039;s perspective, Marxist qualms can often be settled by magical economic arguments, but you&#039;re right about certain moral problems stemming from the mundane nature (if you begin talking about the dignity of labor as a human experience). On a less lofty note, I wonder if these fellows will present (explicitly or between the lines) a picture of what they imagine the average turker to be. Is it a net-savvy hipster from Portland who likes to submit cat stories? A stay at home mom? A child in a third world internet cafe? Ruben&#039;s note above raises some concerns, I&#039;ll talk more up there. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lien: I also agree that the speakers will try to keep it positive. I&#039;m however interested to hear whether these &amp;quot;human computing companies&amp;quot; ran into law suits already because of legal issues, both in the EU and other continents. Further, did they already got (negative?) reactions from governments, human rights organisations, labor organisations, unions, etc. . Also, if a human computing company would be sued by a turk, does it involve the &amp;quot;requester&amp;quot; (as the &amp;quot;employer&amp;quot;?) in the lawsuit? Speaking to my colleagues in Europe, none of them had really heard of this mechanical turk fenomenon. However, I&#039;m sure that taking into account our very strict labor law that highly advantages employees, and strong influence of labor unions, labor regulations will become a huge issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily: I hope all of our guests address issues of transparency. Why didnât I know about mechanical turking until I was required to read about it for this class? Thereâs information about the program on Amazonâs website, but how would anyone know to look for it? We can hold journalists responsible (and hopefully, we won&#039;t need Jacob Riis again) for this stuff, but apart from existing laws, how much can (or should) companies be doing to bring these relatively new labor practices out in the open?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bruno: I would like to hear Lukas&#039; opinion about the possibility of CrowdFlower&#039;s workers having the same labor rights that traditional workers in the industry have. Would this mean the end of such service - both b/c of the potential excessive bureaucracy that could be required and an eventual increase in the service&#039;s cost? My guess is that probably not, b/c the system seems to present advantages even with such regulation - such as easy scalability and increased flexibility of working hours for instance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth:  CrowdFlower collects huge amounts of data on its users.  I&#039;d be interested to know whether the users can take that data with them if they decide to work on say, Odesk (a higher-end UHC service).  In other words, to what extent can workers build a CV and advertise the quality of their work?  One of the things that struck me about Amazon Mechanical Turk is that they give the workers almost no access to their own data.  I&#039;d also be curious more generally to know how much contact Lukas has with CrowdFlower workers--are they individual relationships, or anonymous statistics?  And what are their demographics (for instance, this strikes me as a potentially hugely popular among stay-at-home-moms), what do they like about the service, and what are their main complaints?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;d like to hear everyone&#039;s opinion on whether companies (&amp;quot;requestors&amp;quot; or whatever else they&#039;re called) should be able to remain anonymous.  This seems to me to allow a lot of shady practices, but it might be key for, say, InnoCentive&#039;s scientific questions.  It&#039;s a concern on the &amp;quot;creative&amp;quot; front, too.  As I understand it, the sheep project didn&#039;t disclose the purpose in the initial requests, and some Turkers were startled and/or upset to find their sheep being turned into someone else&#039;s art project.  So I&#039;m more interested in disclosure than whether AMT is a &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; way to produce art--I just see it as part of a busy ecosystem, and it&#039;s not like it&#039;s driving out professional artists (although istockphoto may be).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I notice on this page and our mailing list is that we&#039;re lumping a huge variety of sites under the UHC label.  It would be valuable for the class, or maybe just the UHC group, to develop more of a taxonomy.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Predictions&amp;diff=337</id>
		<title>Day 3 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Predictions&amp;diff=337"/>
		<updated>2010-01-07T01:49:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1- &#039;&#039;labor rights&#039;&#039; â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2- workersâ new &#039;&#039;expectation of complete anonymity&#039;&#039;, that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones). Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3- the &#039;&#039;use of UHC for complex, creative tasks&#039;&#039;, analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the tasks].&lt;br /&gt;
: Andrew: Since at least some of our guests tonight are &amp;quot;creatives&amp;quot;, I hope to hear some discussion about the relationship between full-time freelancers and websites that crowdsource complex, creative tasks (e.g. Worth1000, [http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php iStockPhoto]). At a Berkman lunch last spring, [http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/ Jeff Howe] cited a [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1122462 study] that showed only 4% of iStockPhoto sellers derived their primary income from the site. As the site and its peers begin to dominate the market for stock photography, what happens to the livelihoods of those who depended on stock photography for a living? Protectionist worries like this parallel those about outsourcing more generally and are vulnerable to the same counters about progress and efficient markets; I hope some of those arguments play out tonight. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michael: Since two of our guests have used UHC for artistic projects, I expect one or both of them will respond to some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cult_of_the_Amateur/ Cult of the Amateur]-style criticisms. I am especially interested to hear whether our speakers think UHC improves the quality of creative/design work that can be accomplished or aggregated from UHC or whether it represents a possible step backward from looking to established professionals for this kind of work. Based on the backgrounds of the speakers, I would imagine Bjoern Hartman and Aaron Koblin will argue that UHC presents the possibility for improvement over the previous paradigm of established professionals. I imagine one or more of the speakers may believe that UHC doesn&#039;t really represent a change in quality of such higher level work, but just a difference in kind. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&#039;t know if any of our guests plan on discussing this topic, but I would be especially interested to hear their perspectives on UHC&#039;s effect on the morality of work done. Anonymity on the internet can sometimes remove users&#039; filters of social convention and politeness. So UHC might make it easier for users of Mechanical Turk or CrowdFlower to do work (either voluntarily or unknowingly) that would be morally dubious. There also seems to be a lot of noise in the Mechanical Turk system especially -- a lot of scams rather than true HIT tasks. A possible solution would be to use the existing Mechanical Turk or CrowdFlower functionality for users to rank the morality of the various tasks and provide marginally greater pay or benefits for tasks with higher moral/utility rankings. But I would be interested to hear to what extent our guests think this is a problem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramesh: I predict that the founders of human computing websites will be more focused on the technology and potential of the websites and may have a blind spot for the legal issues that may be raised by UHC (applicability of minimum wage and other laws) while as law students, we may naturally focus on the legal issues implicated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Tyler: I agree that Lukas is obviously very excited about the technology and the potential of his website and similar websites. However, I believe that the &amp;quot;blind spot&amp;quot; that Ramesh predicts will be more of a &amp;quot;worrisome spot&amp;quot;. I think Lukas will be extremely worried about the legal implications concerning products in his space. I think a lot of this worry is justified since it is likely unsettled or unclear law that even an experienced employment lawyer could only guess about, and it I think Lukas may be kept up at night by the potential for new or clarified law to derail his project. I suspect that Lukas will have attempted a risk analysis of his business plan with respect to legal risks, but have had great difficulty because of the challenges associated with assigning probabilities and magnitudes to the risks that he faces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, perhaps the founders of UHC websites will see them simply as a continuation of current trends, especially the increasing numbers of contractors in the labor force of large companies and governments and the outsourcing of call-center (and increasingly higher-skilled) jobs overseas. Does UHC present any problems that are different from the current trends? What role can employment and labor law play in a world where increasing numbers of workers are &amp;quot;independent contractors&amp;quot; or even Mechanical Turks? Will technology re-enact Lochner?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Franny:&lt;br /&gt;
Given the guest list, I diplomatically disagree with Daniel (and agree with Ramesh) and would expect these guests to address the positive potential and advantages of human computing applications into business, arts and culture, as well as the benefits available through this new type of labour force with built-in autonomy.  As libertarian as I may be in my views, I agree with Daniel that there is a real possibility that UHC can develop into a last resort for unskilled workers to earn income in order to survive.  I just don&#039;t think that the negative aspects will be the focus of today&#039;s session.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also be interested to hear our guests&#039; thoughts on whether UHC can be applied to tasks in which sensitive information is involved, and if so, how could private content be protected?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jason: Totally agree with Franny here. I was at first somewhat surprised that in the talk that Lukas gave at TechCruch 50 there was zero discussion of any of the legal aspects of this (no one asked, &amp;quot;Um, do you have to withhold taxes from the workers?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;What if it turned out that someone was a child?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Won&#039;t your business model be ruined if it turns out you have to pay taxes for not providing health insurance to these people?&amp;quot; or anything along those lines) - but, of course, I forgot that I&#039;m a law student and that&#039;s not the lens through which they are viewing this technology. Faced with a room of (mostly) lawyers, these questions will obviously come more the fore than they were there, but I suspect that the considerable advantages and potential of this type of work will dominate the discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Reuben: I wonder how feasible it is to actually make any real money as a mechanical turk.  All of the tasks I tried took me at least a few minutes to read the instructions and then a little bit of time to actually perform the task.  I suppose if someone did the same repetitive task over and over it would cut down on the amount of downtime and you could more quickly make some money, but at $.02 a task (which seems to be a going rate), even if you spent as little as 30 seconds on each HIT, it works out to $2.40 an hour.  You need to pay about $.07 a task to add to the basic minimum wage.  I see how the employers/taskmasters benefit, but aside from the novelty, I don&#039;t see any real benefit for the turkers.  I&#039;d love to hear from Lukas what the average worker makes doing CrowdFlower tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
::Hector: Yes I&#039;m also very interested in seeing some numbers. Do they have any system for flagging usage? First, setting aside fair wage issues, does anyone do this for 40 hrs a week? If so, then many of our worries can be concretely identified and addressed. Check out this article showing relative sweatshop rates in different countries: [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369 Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards]&lt;br /&gt;
::Elisabeth:  This isn&#039;t scientific, but here&#039;s a [http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2009/07/05/can-you-actually-earn-reasonable-money-from-mechanical-turk/ personal finance blogger] on making minimum wage on AMT.  He thinks it&#039;s possible if you take qualification tests and can write quickly.  In my limited experience, I tend to agree that it&#039;s possible (and recall that commuting/wardrobe/etc expenses are nonexistent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Amanda: I think the incentive structure around these sites (non-monetary incentives) is really interesting because I still don&#039;t know where to draw the line between UGC and HITs - for example, when I post a review on Yelp, I don&#039;t own it and they are making money off of what I post (indirectly), and yet they don&#039;t pay me and I don&#039;t expect to be paid.  I saw the Crowdflower presentation live this year and the response I think they&#039;ll have to the minimum wage question is that this work is all on-demand, you can do the work whenever you want to - that opt-in element makes it somewhat different than a traditional employer-employee relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Elisabeth: A related question is whether the popularity of paid-crowd sourced material will drive out unpaid work like Yelp.  I don&#039;t think Yelp could be replaced by a series of HITs (what entity would pay for it?), but if people can immediately monetize their time, they may be less willing to do free tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Juan: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By doing quality control and tracking the quality history of workers, Crowdflower moves one step closer to a real employer. How will it and other human computing websites deal with labor law issues, such as employment relationship, jurisdiction conflict, non-compete agreement, anti-discrimination, disability, leave time, wage and hour requirements, and etc. Also, building up workers&#039; career path, balancing between monitoring and privacy intrusion, disclosing information for workers to evaluate the moral value and giving them the opportunity to opt out, shall be new problems in the cyberspace. Besides, this paid work on-line may have an impact on those contributions without payments. How will we address this issue to make sure people will have incentives to embark on free works. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I want to hear is whether UHC will develop verticals like the traditional industries. How will it develop those verticals not suitable for on-line outsourcing per its nature?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheel: The &#039;quality history of workers&#039; that Juan alluded to is particularly interesting to me.  Crowdflower seems to integrate the &#039;reputation&#039; of workers in ways that Mechanical Turk doesn&#039;t do for its HITs.  I&#039;d like to hear Lukas&#039;s thoughts on this mechanism---how easy is it for users who have a low reputation to just start all over, taking the good (long history with website) away from the bad (similar to the online reputation possibilities that JZ mentioned in his book)?  Does CrowdFlower only track user names in this manner?  Also, would Crowdflower ever consider having tasks cost a higher amount for the vendor with the stipulation that only those with a certain reputation will be able to perform them?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My prediction is that the reputation system will be naturally brought about in conversation when Lukas is describing his company as his &#039;competitive advantage&#039;.  He will probably say that there isn&#039;t a need to have tasks cost a higher amount for the services of those with a good reputation (if the question is posed) because the service is inherently reliable as it can recognize spammers from truly competent workers.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sharona: I agree with Franny and Ramesh - I think the speakers will generally focus more on the positive contributions these types of sites can offer - the innovation from crowd sourcing, the efficiency, the specialization - and less concern over the legal issues. One thing I would like to hear is whether they think these tasks will continue to be performed by US residents, or how quickly they will also be outsourced to English speaking (or non-English speaking) people across the world looking for menial labor especially. Another thing to consider is how or if people could actually make a career out of doing tasks online, or whether it is just something to supplement another job. How will things like health benefits or insurance policies come into play for these kinds of workers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yosuke:&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the majority opinion, I think guests will not really focus on negative aspects of ubiquitous human computing, such as potential problems of child labors in developing countries, as JZ stated in [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/21#41 this paragraph in his book]. While I guess they will address some amazingly positive aspects of UHC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vickie: My guess here is that the &amp;quot;creative types&amp;quot; as Andrew called them are going to be psyched about the creative potential of mechanical turk but less satisfied by the &amp;quot;mundane tasks&amp;quot; that are fueled through the programs (as stated by Aaron Koblin in this video http://vimeo.com/3199933). I believe Koblin and Hartmann are not going to be happy to hear as much about CrowdFlower. Koblin, specifically said in his presentation in this video that he limited the amount of times his contributors could use HITs for his art projects. Unlike CrowdFlower Koblin isn&#039;t looking to use Turkers as steadfast blinded workers. He seems very conscious of all the Marxist qualms with the program.&lt;br /&gt;
:Hector: From my layman&#039;s perspective, Marxist qualms can often be settled by magical economic arguments, but you&#039;re right about certain moral problems stemming from the mundane nature (if you begin talking about the dignity of labor as a human experience). On a less lofty note, I wonder if these fellows will present (explicitly or between the lines) a picture of what they imagine the average turker to be. Is it a net-savvy hipster from Portland who likes to submit cat stories? A stay at home mom? A child in a third world internet cafe? Ruben&#039;s note above raises some concerns, I&#039;ll talk more up there. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lien: I also agree that the speakers will try to keep it positive. I&#039;m however interested to hear whether these &amp;quot;human computing companies&amp;quot; ran into law suits already because of legal issues, both in the EU and other continents. Further, did they already got (negative?) reactions from governments, human rights organisations, labor organisations, unions, etc. . Also, if a human computing company would be sued by a turk, does it involve the &amp;quot;requester&amp;quot; (as the &amp;quot;employer&amp;quot;?) in the lawsuit? Speaking to my colleagues in Europe, none of them had really heard of this mechanical turk fenomenon. However, I&#039;m sure that taking into account our very strict labor law that highly advantages employees, and strong influence of labor unions, labor regulations will become a huge issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily: I hope all of our guests address issues of transparency. Why didnât I know about mechanical turking until I was required to read about it for this class? Thereâs information about the program on Amazonâs website, but how would anyone know to look for it? We can hold journalists responsible (and hopefully, we won&#039;t need Jacob Riis again) for this stuff, but apart from existing laws, how much can (or should) companies be doing to bring these relatively new labor practices out in the open?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bruno: I would like to hear Lukas&#039; opinion about the possibility of CrowdFlower&#039;s workers having the same labor rights that traditional workers in the industry have. Would this mean the end of such service - both b/c of the potential excessive bureaucracy that could be required and an eventual increase in the service&#039;s cost? My guess is that probably not, b/c the system seems to present advantages even with such regulation - such as easy scalability and increased flexibility of working hours for instance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth:  CrowdFlower collects huge amounts of data on its users.  I&#039;d be interested to know whether the users can take that data with them if they decide to work on say, Odesk (a higher-end UHC service).  In other words, to what extent can workers build a CV and advertise the quality of their work?  One of the things that struck me about Amazon Mechanical Turk is that they give the workers almost no access to their own data.  I&#039;d also be curious more generally to know how much contact Lukas has with CrowdFlower workers--are they individual relationships, or anonymous statistics?  And what are their demographics (for instance, this strikes me as a potentially hugely popular among stay-at-home-moms), what do they like about the service, and what are their main complaints?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;d like to hear everyone&#039;s opinion on whether companies (&amp;quot;requestors&amp;quot; or whatever else they&#039;re called) should be able to remain anonymous.  This seems to me to allow a lot of shady practices, but it might be key for, say, InnoCentive&#039;s scientific questions.  It&#039;s a concern on the &amp;quot;creative&amp;quot; front, too.  As I understand it, the sheep project didn&#039;t disclose the purpose in the initial requests, and some Turkers were startled and/or upset to find their sheep being turned into someone else&#039;s art project.  So I&#039;m more interested in disclosure than whether AMT is a &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; way to produce art--I just see it as part of a busy ecosystem, and it&#039;s not like it&#039;s driving out professional artists (although istockphoto may be).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Predictions&amp;diff=336</id>
		<title>Day 3 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Predictions&amp;diff=336"/>
		<updated>2010-01-07T01:42:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1- &#039;&#039;labor rights&#039;&#039; â workers in UHC are not attached to a safe work environment, do not receive any fringe benefits, health care, etc., and as of yet there are no unions for Turks and the like. It is quite easy to see homeworkers as nonworkers, and to build [http://www.missconceptions.net/downloads/mturk-pca09-web.pdf digital sweatshops].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2- workersâ new &#039;&#039;expectation of complete anonymity&#039;&#039;, that go way beyond privacy demands in regular work environments. Hopefully ethical issues concerning this faceless workforce will be discussed, as well as its potential identity and community feelings (taking into account that, unlike bearers of [http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-061009-value formal jobs], UHC workers have shifting numbers, not social security ones). Still on this topic, I expect debates about people willing to perform otherwise shameful tasks, and about the opportunities for children, sick or unfit workers in general to work / be worked. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3- the &#039;&#039;use of UHC for complex, creative tasks&#039;&#039;, analyzed in conjunction with a look at the economics of commoditized labor pools. Resulting discussions could examine quality control and its costs, and [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1357054.1357127 proper design], necessary to unleash [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3Q6Y6Ylqo creativity] and demand more than repetitive, boring tasks from fellow anonymous humans. On that note, it is nice to see that, as scientific experiments with Mechanical Turks [http://experimentalturk.wordpress.com/ become more popular], academic attention is drawn towards the problematic incentives in the platformâs most common setting (low payment + repetitive tasks), which encourages Turks to finish HITs as fast as they can, [http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2010/01/looking-for-subjects-amazons-mechanical-turk.html at the expense of proper comprehension of the tasks].&lt;br /&gt;
: Andrew: Since at least some of our guests tonight are &amp;quot;creatives&amp;quot;, I hope to hear some discussion about the relationship between full-time freelancers and websites that crowdsource complex, creative tasks (e.g. Worth1000, [http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php iStockPhoto]). At a Berkman lunch last spring, [http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/ Jeff Howe] cited a [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1122462 study] that showed only 4% of iStockPhoto sellers derived their primary income from the site. As the site and its peers begin to dominate the market for stock photography, what happens to the livelihoods of those who depended on stock photography for a living? Protectionist worries like this parallel those about outsourcing more generally and are vulnerable to the same counters about progress and efficient markets; I hope some of those arguments play out tonight. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My wish list for the session: discussions of solutions / tools such as [http://turkopticon.differenceengines.com/ Turkopticon], a Firefox application designed to identify and expose âshady employersâ.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michael: Since two of our guests have used UHC for artistic projects, I expect one or both of them will respond to some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cult_of_the_Amateur/ Cult of the Amateur]-style criticisms. I am especially interested to hear whether our speakers think UHC improves the quality of creative/design work that can be accomplished or aggregated from UHC or whether it represents a possible step backward from looking to established professionals for this kind of work. Based on the backgrounds of the speakers, I would imagine Bjoern Hartman and Aaron Koblin will argue that UHC presents the possibility for improvement over the previous paradigm of established professionals. I imagine one or more of the speakers may believe that UHC doesn&#039;t really represent a change in quality of such higher level work, but just a difference in kind. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&#039;t know if any of our guests plan on discussing this topic, but I would be especially interested to hear their perspectives on UHC&#039;s effect on the morality of work done. Anonymity on the internet can sometimes remove users&#039; filters of social convention and politeness. So UHC might make it easier for users of Mechanical Turk or CrowdFlower to do work (either voluntarily or unknowingly) that would be morally dubious. There also seems to be a lot of noise in the Mechanical Turk system especially -- a lot of scams rather than true HIT tasks. A possible solution would be to use the existing Mechanical Turk or CrowdFlower functionality for users to rank the morality of the various tasks and provide marginally greater pay or benefits for tasks with higher moral/utility rankings. But I would be interested to hear to what extent our guests think this is a problem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramesh: I predict that the founders of human computing websites will be more focused on the technology and potential of the websites and may have a blind spot for the legal issues that may be raised by UHC (applicability of minimum wage and other laws) while as law students, we may naturally focus on the legal issues implicated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Tyler: I agree that Lukas is obviously very excited about the technology and the potential of his website and similar websites. However, I believe that the &amp;quot;blind spot&amp;quot; that Ramesh predicts will be more of a &amp;quot;worrisome spot&amp;quot;. I think Lukas will be extremely worried about the legal implications concerning products in his space. I think a lot of this worry is justified since it is likely unsettled or unclear law that even an experienced employment lawyer could only guess about, and it I think Lukas may be kept up at night by the potential for new or clarified law to derail his project. I suspect that Lukas will have attempted a risk analysis of his business plan with respect to legal risks, but have had great difficulty because of the challenges associated with assigning probabilities and magnitudes to the risks that he faces.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alternatively, perhaps the founders of UHC websites will see them simply as a continuation of current trends, especially the increasing numbers of contractors in the labor force of large companies and governments and the outsourcing of call-center (and increasingly higher-skilled) jobs overseas. Does UHC present any problems that are different from the current trends? What role can employment and labor law play in a world where increasing numbers of workers are &amp;quot;independent contractors&amp;quot; or even Mechanical Turks? Will technology re-enact Lochner?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Franny:&lt;br /&gt;
Given the guest list, I diplomatically disagree with Daniel (and agree with Ramesh) and would expect these guests to address the positive potential and advantages of human computing applications into business, arts and culture, as well as the benefits available through this new type of labour force with built-in autonomy.  As libertarian as I may be in my views, I agree with Daniel that there is a real possibility that UHC can develop into a last resort for unskilled workers to earn income in order to survive.  I just don&#039;t think that the negative aspects will be the focus of today&#039;s session.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would also be interested to hear our guests&#039; thoughts on whether UHC can be applied to tasks in which sensitive information is involved, and if so, how could private content be protected?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Jason: Totally agree with Franny here. I was at first somewhat surprised that in the talk that Lukas gave at TechCruch 50 there was zero discussion of any of the legal aspects of this (no one asked, &amp;quot;Um, do you have to withhold taxes from the workers?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;What if it turned out that someone was a child?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Won&#039;t your business model be ruined if it turns out you have to pay taxes for not providing health insurance to these people?&amp;quot; or anything along those lines) - but, of course, I forgot that I&#039;m a law student and that&#039;s not the lens through which they are viewing this technology. Faced with a room of (mostly) lawyers, these questions will obviously come more the fore than they were there, but I suspect that the considerable advantages and potential of this type of work will dominate the discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Reuben: I wonder how feasible it is to actually make any real money as a mechanical turk.  All of the tasks I tried took me at least a few minutes to read the instructions and then a little bit of time to actually perform the task.  I suppose if someone did the same repetitive task over and over it would cut down on the amount of downtime and you could more quickly make some money, but at $.02 a task (which seems to be a going rate), even if you spent as little as 30 seconds on each HIT, it works out to $2.40 an hour.  You need to pay about $.07 a task to add to the basic minimum wage.  I see how the employers/taskmasters benefit, but aside from the novelty, I don&#039;t see any real benefit for the turkers.  I&#039;d love to hear from Lukas what the average worker makes doing CrowdFlower tasks.&lt;br /&gt;
::Hector: Yes I&#039;m also very interested in seeing some numbers. Do they have any system for flagging usage? First, setting aside fair wage issues, does anyone do this for 40 hrs a week? If so, then many of our worries can be concretely identified and addressed. Check out this article showing relative sweatshop rates in different countries: [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369 Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Amanda: I think the incentive structure around these sites (non-monetary incentives) is really interesting because I still don&#039;t know where to draw the line between UGC and HITs - for example, when I post a review on Yelp, I don&#039;t own it and they are making money off of what I post (indirectly), and yet they don&#039;t pay me and I don&#039;t expect to be paid.  I saw the Crowdflower presentation live this year and the response I think they&#039;ll have to the minimum wage question is that this work is all on-demand, you can do the work whenever you want to - that opt-in element makes it somewhat different than a traditional employer-employee relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Juan: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By doing quality control and tracking the quality history of workers, Crowdflower moves one step closer to a real employer. How will it and other human computing websites deal with labor law issues, such as employment relationship, jurisdiction conflict, non-compete agreement, anti-discrimination, disability, leave time, wage and hour requirements, and etc. Also, building up workers&#039; career path, balancing between monitoring and privacy intrusion, disclosing information for workers to evaluate the moral value and giving them the opportunity to opt out, shall be new problems in the cyberspace. Besides, this paid work on-line may have an impact on those contributions without payments. How will we address this issue to make sure people will have incentives to embark on free works. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I want to hear is whether UHC will develop verticals like the traditional industries. How will it develop those verticals not suitable for on-line outsourcing per its nature?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheel: The &#039;quality history of workers&#039; that Juan alluded to is particularly interesting to me.  Crowdflower seems to integrate the &#039;reputation&#039; of workers in ways that Mechanical Turk doesn&#039;t do for its HITs.  I&#039;d like to hear Lukas&#039;s thoughts on this mechanism---how easy is it for users who have a low reputation to just start all over, taking the good (long history with website) away from the bad (similar to the online reputation possibilities that JZ mentioned in his book)?  Does CrowdFlower only track user names in this manner?  Also, would Crowdflower ever consider having tasks cost a higher amount for the vendor with the stipulation that only those with a certain reputation will be able to perform them?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My prediction is that the reputation system will be naturally brought about in conversation when Lukas is describing his company as his &#039;competitive advantage&#039;.  He will probably say that there isn&#039;t a need to have tasks cost a higher amount for the services of those with a good reputation (if the question is posed) because the service is inherently reliable as it can recognize spammers from truly competent workers.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sharona: I agree with Franny and Ramesh - I think the speakers will generally focus more on the positive contributions these types of sites can offer - the innovation from crowd sourcing, the efficiency, the specialization - and less concern over the legal issues. One thing I would like to hear is whether they think these tasks will continue to be performed by US residents, or how quickly they will also be outsourced to English speaking (or non-English speaking) people across the world looking for menial labor especially. Another thing to consider is how or if people could actually make a career out of doing tasks online, or whether it is just something to supplement another job. How will things like health benefits or insurance policies come into play for these kinds of workers?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yosuke:&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the majority opinion, I think guests will not really focus on negative aspects of ubiquitous human computing, such as potential problems of child labors in developing countries, as JZ stated in [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/21#41 this paragraph in his book]. While I guess they will address some amazingly positive aspects of UHC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vickie: My guess here is that the &amp;quot;creative types&amp;quot; as Andrew called them are going to be psyched about the creative potential of mechanical turk but less satisfied by the &amp;quot;mundane tasks&amp;quot; that are fueled through the programs (as stated by Aaron Koblin in this video http://vimeo.com/3199933). I believe Koblin and Hartmann are not going to be happy to hear as much about CrowdFlower. Koblin, specifically said in his presentation in this video that he limited the amount of times his contributors could use HITs for his art projects. Unlike CrowdFlower Koblin isn&#039;t looking to use Turkers as steadfast blinded workers. He seems very conscious of all the Marxist qualms with the program.&lt;br /&gt;
:Hector: From my layman&#039;s perspective, Marxist qualms can often be settled by magical economic arguments, but you&#039;re right about certain moral problems stemming from the mundane nature (if you begin talking about the dignity of labor as a human experience). On a less lofty note, I wonder if these fellows will present (explicitly or between the lines) a picture of what they imagine the average turker to be. Is it a net-savvy hipster from Portland who likes to submit cat stories? A stay at home mom? A child in a third world internet cafe? Ruben&#039;s note above raises some concerns, I&#039;ll talk more up there. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lien: I also agree that the speakers will try to keep it positive. I&#039;m however interested to hear whether these &amp;quot;human computing companies&amp;quot; ran into law suits already because of legal issues, both in the EU and other continents. Further, did they already got (negative?) reactions from governments, human rights organisations, labor organisations, unions, etc. . Also, if a human computing company would be sued by a turk, does it involve the &amp;quot;requester&amp;quot; (as the &amp;quot;employer&amp;quot;?) in the lawsuit? Speaking to my colleagues in Europe, none of them had really heard of this mechanical turk fenomenon. However, I&#039;m sure that taking into account our very strict labor law that highly advantages employees, and strong influence of labor unions, labor regulations will become a huge issue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily: I hope all of our guests address issues of transparency. Why didnât I know about mechanical turking until I was required to read about it for this class? Thereâs information about the program on Amazonâs website, but how would anyone know to look for it? We can hold journalists responsible (and hopefully, we won&#039;t need Jacob Riis again) for this stuff, but apart from existing laws, how much can (or should) companies be doing to bring these relatively new labor practices out in the open?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bruno: I would like to hear Lukas&#039; opinion about the possibility of CrowdFlower&#039;s workers having the same labor rights that traditional workers in the industry have. Would this mean the end of such service - both b/c of the potential excessive bureaucracy that could be required and an eventual increase in the service&#039;s cost? My guess is that probably not, b/c the system seems to present advantages even with such regulation - such as easy scalability and increased flexibility of working hours for instance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth:  CrowdFlower collects huge amounts of data on its users.  I&#039;d be interested to know whether the users can take that data with them if they decide to work on say, Odesk (a higher-end UHC service).  In other words, to what extent can workers build a CV and advertise the quality of their work?  One of the things that struck me about Amazon Mechanical Turk is that they give the workers almost no access to their own data.  I&#039;d also be curious more generally to know how much contact Lukas has with CrowdFlower workers--are they individual relationships, or anonymous statistics?  And what are their demographics (for instance, this strikes me as a potentially hugely popular among stay-at-home-moms), what do they like about the service, and what are their main complaints?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;d like to hear everyone&#039;s opinion on whether companies (&amp;quot;requestors&amp;quot; or whatever else they&#039;re called) should be able to remain anonymous.  This seems to me to allow a lot of shady practices, but it might be key for, say, InnoCentive&#039;s scientific questions.  It&#039;s a concern on the &amp;quot;creative&amp;quot; front, too.  As I understand it, the sheep project didn&#039;t disclose the purpose in the initial requests, and some Turkers were startled and/or upset to find their sheep being turned into someone else&#039;s art project.  So I&#039;m more interested in disclosure than whether AMT is a &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; way to produce art--I just see it as part of a busy ecosystem, and it&#039;s not like it&#039;s driving out professional artists (although istockphoto may be).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_2_Thoughts&amp;diff=333</id>
		<title>Day 2 Thoughts</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_2_Thoughts&amp;diff=333"/>
		<updated>2010-01-07T01:26:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cybersecurity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel: the idea of a &amp;quot;digital driver&#039;s license&amp;quot; has been around for [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrpajcAgR1E some time now]. Effective and simple [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature digital signature] schemes, outside corporate or governmental control, sound much more promising to me.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason: This was a great discussion. To borrow a taxonomy from the [http://consc.net/papers/facing.html philosophy of mind], I particularly liked that we were trying to identify the &amp;quot;hard&amp;quot; problems and the &amp;quot;easy&amp;quot; problems of cybersecurity - even if we didn&#039;t always agree about what they are. In theory, though, we might identify a class of easy problems because they seem to have incremental solutions. If your drone transmissions are getting intercepted, use encryption! If you&#039;re worried about data loss, generate lots of backups to the cloud or to a mesh network! If you&#039;re worried about your credit card being stolen when you buy on Amazon, how about a government-generated user ID system? Or (somewhat more controversially), if your Air Traffic Control system is vulnerable, spend some money and update it - maybe making it more appliancized, maybe adding more points of human control.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But that still leaves the hard problems that seem to need quantum solutions. How can we solve the attribution problem when the global network was fundamentally designed to be pretty  anonymous? How do we rectify the fact that the Internet carries both regular civilian communications and government transmissions? And how can we guarantee that hardware is secure when the only way to verify that it was built to spec is to take it apart? I&#039;m looking forward to talking more about both kinds of problems, and both kinds of solutions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Tyler: While I agree that it is a serious problem when we can&#039;t trust our hardware, I thought it was also a good point brought up in class that there is no reason why we should trust the software that runs on top of the hardware either. Is it possible to write software that we can trust even if we know or assume that it is running on malicious hardware? Are there any out of the box techniques that would allow us to use untrusted software running on untrusted hardware but still have some degree of security?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Sheel: Professor Goldsmith&#039;s comment showed that this is a problem that may have to be solved before law can even come into play: law depends on attribution that Jason mentioned - finding the bad actor.  What are we supposed to do if we are only 20% sure an attack came from China?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheel: First time that our military/government has critical information (not withstanding the unencrypted info that the government was sending overseas!) being sent over public networks.  Am curious to discuss either a) better methods of encrypting information over public networks or b) better ways to build private, government-only networks.  Also, the SCADA comment made by Ivan about the problem not being authentication, but old networks/platforms that have an extremely difficult time being changed, show this will require a LOT of incentives for people to be able to make the switch to more powerful networks---if that even is the answer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, w/ regards to Prof. Zittrain&#039;s first &#039;out of the box&#039; solution on ad hoc mesh networking - I&#039;m having trouble understanding incentives for the guy with the internet on the outskirts of hurricane in the Katrina example to let others access his/her connection.  Wouldn&#039;t being &#039;kind&#039; then require a troublesome amount of security and encryption on behalf of the original users part?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chuck:  First of all, my thanks to Prof. Zittrain and to all of you for allowing me to participate (including on your wiki).  I hope what I offered was helpful and perhaps even thought-provoking.  Second, here are some of the links I mentioned for more on the identity/security issues:  http://www.microsoft.com/endtoendtrust and in particular the white paper under the &amp;quot;vision&amp;quot; link.  For those inclined for a geekier dive, there is Kim Cameron&#039;s excellent blog at http://www.identityblog.com/.  Finally, I&#039;d also note our blog post on one of our big projects, the US-China Internet Industry Forum and Craig Mundie&#039;s remarks in particular, which touched on these cybersecurity issues in that context. http://bit.ly/8BpJfe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== GNI ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reuben: I think we should all congratulate ourselves on our prognostication skills.  A lot of our predictions were right on the money.  After reviewing my notes, I came away with a few main points.  It seems the GNI has had two main benefits for those involved.  First, it has helped companies establish processes for how they will handle sticky situations that arise in fields of free expression and privacy where previously those concerns went unrepresented or were dealt with an ad hoc scramble.  Secondly, GNI has facilitated relationships between companies and human rights organizations that allow the two sides to work together collaboratively to map out strategies and get more effective results.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the panelists recognized the effectiveness of the GNI in at least certain situations, I was a bit surprised by the degree to which at least some participants seemed to welcome government involvement in order to force more attention on the activities of smaller companies who don&#039;t stand out the same way a Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, or CISCO might.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason: I think that the discussion took a bit of steam out of the &amp;quot;Difficult&amp;quot; part of the &amp;quot;Difficult Problems&amp;quot; equation - at least with regard to why Cisco is not participating in GNI and how they make decisions that implicate human rights issues. Mark&#039;s explanation of Cisco&#039;s position was exceedingly compelling: to my mind, he left little doubt that they really do have a different sort of impact on human rights than companies higher up in the stack; that they face a vastly different competitive landscape and client base than other ICT companies; and that they have well-developed standards and principles going forward. From where I sit, they would be completely crazy to join the GNI - it&#039;d be all potential downside with no upside that I can tell, for either the company or for human rights. (Sadly, Cisco did not pay me to say all that, even if I just completely toed the company line.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth: I generally agree, but I wonder why Cisco doesn&#039;t take the lead in starting a GNI-like group (or a subgroup of GNI itself) to deal with hardware issues.  That is, GNI could be seen as a standards body for companies in all different parts of the ICT space that want to expand operations abroad.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elisabeth: after the session, two still-difficult problems jumped out at me.  First, how can GNI get smaller companies on board?  In the US, I can imagine consumer and government pressure playing a role, but that will only work if the burdens aren&#039;t onerous.  Second, although Mark did talk about the long-term benefit to Cisco of getting more people online, I was struck by the fact that companies are asked to join GNI partly (mostly?) out of altruism.  The discussion about externalities left me wondering if there&#039;s a way to ground GNI in economics rather than goodwill.  As I understand externalities, they&#039;re costs or benefits that aren&#039;t internalized.  If human rights violations created a cost that appeared in a company&#039;s bottom line, presumably there would be more effort to avoid them.  In the US, I think consumer outrage after gross human rights violations helps internalize their cost, but I wonder if more of a business case can be made for GNI membership or GNI-like principles.                 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chuck:  I am also impressed (but not surprised) by your prognostication skills.  I&#039;d only add that, in addition to the two points Reuben notes above, GNI has generated a systematic way for companies to make publically credible the steps they take.  This, I think, is where companies not in GNI are missing out.  When there are these cases (as Mark noted) of public condemnation of companies - which can at times generate more heat than light - it is very helpful to be able to point to the process that GNI creates and demonstrate that your company not only has standards and principles but that these are being followed in practice.  I also think GNI is very aware that different business sectors have different needs.  Microsoft, like Cisco, sells products and services to governments (servers are in a somewhat similar position to routers as part of network infrastructure) and we stand to benefit from guidance in those areas. Related to that, and on the point about government involvement, I&#039;d also note that the GNI principles are applicable across a company&#039;s operations, including in the US, and in that respect it&#039;s important that governments address their own practices as well as look for constructive steps to help advance user trust in other markets.  I hope that came across in the class, but if not I wanted to note it here too. Thanks again.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_2_Predictions&amp;diff=240</id>
		<title>Day 2 Predictions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_2_Predictions&amp;diff=240"/>
		<updated>2010-01-05T17:48:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China&#039;s Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn&#039;t want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, &amp;quot;Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information.&amp;quot; My guess: Mark Chandler will affirm this statement tomorrow, but the real reason is that following the GNI principles would be a poor business decision and CISCO isn&#039;t willing to make any sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth: we might push back on the idea that this would be a poor business decision, and solicit Cosson and Hope&#039;s opinions.  Yahoo and Google have faced real backlash for their actions, and GNI serves as something of a safety net against that backlash.  We could also ask Chandler if he can imagine how GNI could be structured such that it would be worthwhile for Cisco to join--it would be interesting to see if what he says matches up with what Cosson says GNI needs to do to recruit new members.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel: I believe Chandler will provide his professional - and hopefully personal - account on the role CISCO plays in [facilitating / enabling / providing neutral tools] to allow for &amp;quot;different regimes&amp;quot; to control their nationals&#039; internet experience. Cosson and Hope will probably dedicate more time to in depth discussion of two issues: involvement of industry actors other than the GNI founding members and the types of incentives that are needed for that, including legal alternatives and public exposure of &amp;quot;do some evil&amp;quot; firms. Also, given that we will not have representatives from Google and Yahoo, these companies are likely to figure prominently in the examples of events, actions and concessions to be avoided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanford Lewis: I predict that Mr. Chandler will not discuss  in very much depth the extent to which external stakeholder and stockholder pressure has shaped company policy, unless he is prompted by student questions to  discuss this.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lien: The GNI principles are so general and an &amp;quot;implementation / repetition&amp;quot; of international standards. If a certain company (for whatever reason) does not want to join the GNI, this company still has to comply with these standards. To play the devil&#039;s advocate, does joining the GNI change anything in reality or is it just a good thing to join because of the company&#039;s image and reputation? Furthermore, the concept of the GNI (sort of self- regulation) is a very American concept. European companies are not very familiar with the kind of approach. The GNI might be a good starting point for a company to obey the certain principles. However, the privacy principles are so broadly written, that if a company would obey to these principles, it would still not be comply with European Privacy legislation. Why would a European company then join the initiative and do all the efforts (e.g. audit, ...), knowing that it would still not comply with European legislation?&lt;br /&gt;
: Elisabeth:  I also wonder how true it is that these are &amp;quot;international&amp;quot; standards, rather than American or American/European standards.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Experiences_in_Crowd_Sourcing&amp;diff=195</id>
		<title>Experiences in Crowd Sourcing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Experiences_in_Crowd_Sourcing&amp;diff=195"/>
		<updated>2010-01-04T03:56:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Mechanical Turk  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Daniel Arbix ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have signed up to Mechanical Turk as a Brazilian citizen (not all HIT opportunities were available, then). I have tried to explore different tasks to check the diversity the platform offers for workers. There are some amusing tasks to be performed, but most â against the websiteâs Participation Terms â, are boring schemes to distort internet advertisement payments or to gather active e-mails (for spam or worse, I presume). There are also numerous HITs which demand fake reviews of products and websites, or which require âturksâ to show support to social-networking profiles or events, and even to write posts in blogs making compliments to the blog ownerâs clever analyses. A short summary of my experiences follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;1st try&#039;&#039;: bad page design, no $&lt;br /&gt;
I saw a task as available, was able to follow the instructions and actually perform it on a third party website, but then I realized that the event that would trigger a confirmation number required for my payment had already expired, so of course no payment was made to my account. This was the first contact I had with HITs designed to redirect traffic to earn advertisement revenues (it was described as âa test for page load time, very easy, for USD 2.00â).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;2nd try&#039;&#039;: the second HIT I tried had the following misleading instructions:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;This HIT is an easy to complete &#039;sign up&#039; assignment. It shouldn&#039;t take you longer than 2 minutes to complete. Many thanks for your time! Simply go to: http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php?mid=633&amp;amp;id=93282  Sign up. Then send a print screen of your confirmation email to: mark.studentearnings@gmail.com and write your username and approximate time of sign up in the box below&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
The site redirected me to http://www.offersclick.co.uk/offers/SiteRender.aspx?SiteID=501&amp;amp;ThemeID=21&amp;amp;q14259=AFW&amp;amp;q26274=93282  Again, it seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenuesâ¦&lt;br /&gt;
It was impossible to complete the task within the assigned time â the form-filling advertisements website took too much to load â, so I returned the HIT (and received no $, in spite of losing a lot of time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;3rd try&#039;&#039;: the HIT had the following description:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Complete free online quote form. MUST BE 18 OR OLDER AND LIVE IN USA TO COMPLETE THIS HIT Visit Site - Enter Name and Email - Takes less than a minute. IMPORTANT: Eligible only to those who have not yet signed up to this offer. Please don&#039;t use disposable e-mails as well. Let&#039;s keep this site honest.  INSTRUCTION:  1) To get started, visit this website:  http://www.aislezone.com/mturk-offer02.php   2) Select make, model and enter zip code. Click &amp;quot;get quotes&amp;quot;  3) Complete the form and click on &amp;quot;get free dealer quotes&amp;quot; REQUIRED PROOF:  On activation confirmation copy/paste or type full text to the box below starting with : &amp;quot;Sent!...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
The time-description was fair, and I received payment after two days. I also (stupidly) provided my real Stanford e-mail, with the result of getting my mailbox now filled by car dealers messages. Again, the HIT seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;4th try&#039;&#039;: the HIT had the following description:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Data Collection-Google Results   Reward: $1.25 per HIT  Insert address, perform google searches and indicate first result&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
This HIT was an honest one, requiring a verification of search results (Google), all related to the same company. Time description was fair, and my $ arrived a day later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5th try&#039;&#039;: the HIT had the following description:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Rate faces of candidates running for office.  Usually takes less than 5 minutes.  You can find the survey here:  http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/207922/faces3  At the end of the survey, you&#039;ll find a code. To get paid, please enter the code below:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
This was a fun, quick HIT. It had a fair time description, and payment was received after a day. I was, however, a terrible subject for the MIT social psychology survey, since most pictures to be rated are of Brazilian politiciansâ¦&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Jason Harrow ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It all started out so promisingly. Before I even started, I was excited because &amp;quot;Mechanical Turk&amp;quot; is such a great name. What did it mean? What was mechanical about it? And who or what is the âTurkâ in the transaction? Then, in the back of my mind: isnât that somehow vaguely racist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia would know what a Mechanical Turk is, of course. So I searched for it, and I immediately found my answer. The Mechanical Turk was a chess playing âmachineâ that, âfrom 1770 until its destruction by fire in 1854 . . . was exhibited by various owners as an automaton, though it was explained in the early 1820s as an elaborate hoax.â Something thought to be a form of artificial intelligence later explained to be just a smart guy in a box? How cool is that? Could there be a more perfect name for this service? I made a mental note that if I am ever in the position to pick a name for an Internet company or service, I will find out who chose &amp;quot;Mechanical Turk&amp;quot; and consult him or her. I couldnât have been more excited to get started.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I logged in with my Amazon ID and created my Amazon payment account. Unlike Daniel (above), I am a US citizen; also unlike Daniel, I chose to go first for a little assignment that paid $.02 per HIT. My task was to go to the website of a given educational institution, type in when the spring semester 2010 started, and give the URL of the Academic Calendar page confirming this. I did one successfully and submitted it. It took about 90 seconds. Easiest job of my life. Bring on a few more.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one took longer and bore no fruit, though: the little Midwestern barbershop college that was assigned to me didnât display when their spring semester started (side thought: do barbershop colleges even have spring semesters?). That was frustrating; all that effort, and no shiny pennies at the end of the rainbow. And why in the world does this guy â Aaron Smyth, whoever that is â even want to include barbershop colleges in his survey? What could he possibly be doing with that data? I pressed on and did a few more start dates before trying to find something else. It got boring pretty quickly, and I realized that 2 cents wasnât really worth it beyond the initial thrill of it all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Daniel, I then encountered what later became obvious as a scam: someone who said theyâd pay me money for signing up, but the time given was too fast and there was no way to actually verify that I completed the task in the way they said I needed to. This made me angry. How in the world does Amazon â one of my favorite companies on the planet, by the way â let them get away with this? I reported the bastards, but I donât know what happened to that complaint. A few days later, Mechanical Turk still seems littered with these scams. Thatâs disappointing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I turned to a final HIT, what seemed like just an individual who wanted me to go to his website and post any kind of comment, just for the sake of getting more hits. Seemed a little shady, but I gave it a try and duly posted a comment. Days later, I got the bad news: rejected! I wouldnât be getting the shiny nickel I was promised. Hey Amazon: how is that allowed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was once so excited by the great name and the prospect of making easy money, but I&#039;m now deeply disappointed with both the requesters and with Amazon. Why did all the posters seem so scammy? Why aren&#039;t there any tasks that seem interesting and worthwhile? And how does Amazon let the requesters get away with this? I felt somehow betrayed by an Internet company that I feel oddly loyal to; it was as if HBO launched a new channel that turned out to be entirely infomercials. Get your act together, Mr. Bezos!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I logged into my account a few days later. The final tally was 8 HITs accepted; 4 submitted; 1 returned; 3 abandoned; 3 approved; 1 rejected; and, in the end, 6 measly American cents earned. I wish that the original chess-playing Mechanical Turk hadnât been destroyed in 1854. That Mechanical Turk might have been a sight to see. This one isnât.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lien Ceulemans ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After all the Christmas presents I had to buy for my family, I thought that a good way to earn some money (while doing my homework) was to volunteer as a mechanical turk. &lt;br /&gt;
A Google search brought me to the Amazon mechanical turk website (https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before starting, I first had to create a payment account and accept the 6 pages long âAmazon Mechanical Turk Participation Agreementâ, thereby exclusively granting my intellectual property rights to the âRequesterâ. Furthermore, this agreement informed me that, as a mechanical turk, I would perform a âwork for hireâ âand would ânot be entitled [â¦] to any vacation pay, sick leave, insurance programs, including group health insurance or retirement benefits; or [â¦] worker&#039;s compensation benefits in the event of injury.â &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amazon describes its platform as âa marketplace for work that requires human intelligenceâ There is indeed no sign of a worldwide crisis, as 306,354 âHuman Intelligence Tasksâ or âHITâsâ were available. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I started with an easy, quite boring assignment that would pay me 0.05 dollar for each correct hit: âFind the Website Address for a Restaurant and its Menuâ. Since at that time, my âvalueâ was still rated at 100, I met the qualification requirement. While the website of âMerlo La Trattoriaâ in Chicago is quite easy to find, I ran into difficulties after a few hits. The address of the âBrazil steakâ house was only indicated in Chinese characters in the assignment, so I got completely lost at Google. It was time for another challengeâ¦&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For my next HIT, I had to âwrite a short answer about carsâ of 50 to 60 words. Since I do not know anything about cars, this seemed the perfect HIT to test the reliability of the mechanical turk platform. To my best knowledge, I answered the question âHow do I clean a mass air flow sensor on my Mercury?â as follows: âThis is very easy to clean. You just take some water and soap that smells delicious and pour the water into the mass air flow sensor. If it is still not clean enough, repeat this process for a couple of times. You will see that your mass air flow sensor will look brand new again.â Although the HIT explanation mentioned that no qualification was required, after performing the hit, my answer was âsubmitted to conjecture corporation and [would] be approved or rejected shortly.â A few hours later, I received a âQualification Request Rejection Notificationâ email âfor Amazon Mechanical Turk. Despite I failed the test question, I did receive the 0.03 dollar reward for participating in this HIT. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After this, I decided to find a HIT which was more related to my field of knowledge. For different law schools, I needed to find the final fall application deadline for 2010 and the URL of website where I found the information. There were still 53 HITS available with a reward of 0.05 dollar each. Although the HIT information indicated that each HIT would take me around 10 minutes, I managed to complete a single HIT in about 4 minutes. This would thus result in an hourly wage of 0.75 dollar. Taking into account both the operating costs (e.g. electricity, internet, etc.) and the opportunity costs involved, I wonder who - besides âDifficult Problems in Cyberlawâ students - is willing to be a mechanical turk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I got very bored, I tried to perform another HIT that required me to find the date, parties and subject of so-called âtop secret letters of the US war departmentâ. While this sounds as a very exciting and interesting assignment, in reality, trying to analyze unreadable pdfâs was not that fun. I decided to give it a last try, but had a hard time to find any attractive assignment. In the end, I participated in a research of the UNC Charlotte Human Computer Interaction Lab that does research in policy making decisions for social applications. After giving my âInformed Consent for Social Application Decision Makingâ, I had to indicate whether (i) I would or would not accept a certain Facebook application and (ii) share information of my Facebook friends with this application. Although this was not really interesting, this HIT gave me at least a good feeling as I contributed to university research. This was perfect to end my life as a mechanical turk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today (i.e. 5 days after submitted more than 20 hits), my Amazon Payment Account indicates that the approval of my submitted HITâs is still pending. This means that so far, I only earned 0.03 dollars for 2 hours of labor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Juan Cheng ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I signed up to Mechanical Turk to complete a HIT. Before I decided which one to work on, I browsed the available HITs to see what kind of jobs are offered there. Because I wanted to know what is the difference between the HITs and the tasks in physical work environment. I found most of the HITs are trivial, boring and kind of meaningless. One of the HITs even highlighted that âthis job is only for [a person&#039;s name]. Anyone else will be rejectedâ. This is so weird. Why the requester just ask the person he designate to finish the job offline? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I finally decided to work on a HIT which asked the worker to find the official website address for a restaurant and its menu. The requester provided the full name, address and telephone number of the restaurant to help target the object. It&#039;s pretty easy. I just surfed on Google and found the website address in 2 minutes. As requested, I attached the URL of the website address and that of the menu and submitted the HITs on December 28, 2009. Then I returned to my account to see the status. It showed that the HIT I submitted was pending for approval/rejection by the requester. Up to now, I have not been approved or rejected yet. I&#039;ve sent a email to the requester to check. Will follow up. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing to note is before I selected the HIT above, I accepted several other HITs to try to work on them. I then returned them because they were very boring and time consuming. I supposed Mechanical Turk would not made a record for this. However, they actually did and even recorded the submitted, returned and abandoned rates based on the total HITs I accepted. It makes me feel like I&#039;m an employee of Mechanical Turk and they will probably evaluate my performance based on these rates and other data, e.g. the feedback from the requester. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I guess the requester offered this HIT for at least two purposes. One is to get more people know the restaurant. Actually I really like the style of the website and I would try this restaurant if I happen to be around. The other might be to get more people search it on Google. If there are plenty of search on this term, the name of the restaurant appears as a google suggest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Victoria Baranetsky ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So fascinating. I âplayedâ on Mechanical Turk for several days doing a variety of hits. I had never participated on Mechanical Turk before but soon became a junkie. Spending an embarrassing amount of time on it. Some tasks kept me entertained longer then others. The ones I like I would repeat over and over. And when I got bored with one I moved onto the next. Here is a short list of a few of the HITs that I participated in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first was a psychological study, I assume. The task was to rate the attractiveness of people in 30 photos from 1 (least attractive to 10 (most attractive). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second was called âBasketball Tracking.â As footage of a basketball game played I was assigned to move a box over the image of the player. (A somewhat simpler version of Duck Hunt).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third was named âTag Fashion Magazine Covers.â As you clicked through different covers of beauty magazines the task was to categorize the predominant color on the cover (e.g. blue, green or red), the âlookâ (e.g. sexy, glamorous, or charming) and the brand of magazine (e.g. Vogue, Cosmo or Hustler). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fourth was a photo identifier of cars. A car listing including the model and year was provided and the HIT required that the Turker find a matching photo for that specific car. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After I did these HITs I wanted to do something a little more thought provoking so I took three qualifying exams that were simple multiple choice questions including my place of birth, age and degree of education. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In total there are several things that struck me while âplayingâ with mechanical Turk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, the diversity of HITs was fascinating. The HITS were all over the board â going to show the incredible ability for Turk to be a great tool for a plethora of organizations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, although the diversity was phenomenal I was a bit hesitant with every HIT because I didnât know the purpose or reason for what I was doing. For example, the psychological study that asked me to rate the beauty of the persons in the photographs was bizarre in asking me for a waiver. The waiver explained that I was not allowed to bring suit for my work in this study and that I had no monetary rights. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only was the purpose concealed but the member asking for the HIT is not revealed. Although there is a name for example âPaul Goldsteinâ is listed as the requester â further information is not available. I think this lack of transparency is troublesome. Anonymity certainly promotes more use of Mechanical Turk but it seems when some tasks could perhaps have malicious purposes, transparency would be good. In addition, transparency of the Turkers also would make their work more veritable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the final thing that troubled me on Mechanical Turk was the addictive quality of the tasks. By placing money into the equation one feels that playing, categorizing and writing reviews - in essence what is wasting time is perhaps a valuable to spend time. The games become frighteningly more appealing and what begins as a 45-minute endeavor turns into several hours of clicking, tagging and reading. I felt like a better at Atlantic City â pulling the proverbial lever at the slot machine over and over again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Andrew Jacobs ===&lt;br /&gt;
I also experimented with Amazonâs Mechanical Turk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first HIT was to transcribe a 30 second audio clip. From the perspective of a new mturk worker, I was entirely satisfied with the experience. I could preview the audio clip before accepting the HIT, so as not to commit myself to garbled mumbling and subsequently damage my reputation by abandoning the task. The content turned out to be a snippet of Biblical interpretation. I accepted, did my best (bracketing a few words I wasnât sure of, including âMillenialistsâ), and a few days later received two cents in my payments account for approximately three minutes of work. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a slightly more critical perspective, this HIT got me thinking about economic and noneconomic incentives. As an unpaid intern for a literary magazine a few years ago, I transcribed a two-hour roundtable discussion among five barely distinguishable voices, recorded on a cheap, analog tape recorder. Though the task was awful, I worked on it diligently, mostly because I liked the editors and believed in their cause. If that alleged âMillenialistâ word had popped up, I certainly would have gone to greater lengths to verify it than I did here, even though I risked two whole cents in this case. What if, then, there were a volunteer crowdsourcing tool for this requesterâs particular brand of Christianity? Or, more plausibly, a general volunteer crowdsourcing website that grouped unpaid tasks by the causes that their completion furthered? The results might well be of higher quality than mturkâs, and I imagine those volunteer sites would avoid some thorny labor issues that Amazon faces. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My second HIT, which a few others have mentioned, was easy: I was to find the URLs for the main website and the menu of a given restaurant, at five cents a pop. (If either of these websites proved nonexistent, there was space to say so, and I still got my nickel.)  Though it took a couple more days than the first HIT, I was eventually paid $.15 for my three finds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mindless, but not grating, simplicity of this HIT made me think a bit about how mturkâs economic incentives may be better utilized without increasing their value. In order to shift my earning to an Amazon Gift Certificate, for example, I have to follow a handful of steps and type in exactly how much I want to transfer. Why canât I have my account be directly and continuously tied to a Gift Certificate? And why not have a âHIT itâ button along with âBuyâ in Amazonâs retail stores? If there wasnât enough money in my Payments account, the button would take me to my mturk account so I could earn some more. One of the most valuable things I can get for less than a dollar, in my mind, is an Amazon MP3. If Iâm working for tiny sums anyway, I might be more motivated if my tiny carrot were a more direct embodiment of value. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now that I have a Mechanical Turk account, will I use it again? Maybe. Like Victoria, I had some fun completing the âTag Fashion Coversâ HITs (though at first the âsubmitâ button in their dialog box was malfunctioning). Perhaps even as much fun as, say, those last twenty minutes of bopping around on the Internet before bed. I smell a New Yearâs resolution. . .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Elisabeth Oppenheimer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too spent some time on Mechanical Turk.  I&#039;d used it a few times before, which was enough to teach me to stay far away from $.02 tasks.  They&#039;re boring, they often just don&#039;t work, and they pay $.02.  But I actually enjoy some of the higher-paid tasks, especially writing articles.  So I sorted the available HITs by wage and started with the one that paid the most, $4.17/hour.  That seemed like an unbelievably high wage, particularly since it only asked me to look at a website and review it.  After I&#039;d glanced at the website, though, I realized that it was impossible to submit the HIT.  Clever spam: the highest-priced task gets lots of viewers, who click through to the ad-loaded website, whose operators are presumably paid per view (or just hope some Turkers will click through).  The operators didnât any up paying for any HITs, so voilaâfree traffic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moderately disgruntled, I found a $1.70 HIT to write a 300 word piece about green weddings.  It took maybe 5 minutes to complete, and I had fun--law students don&#039;t get to do much free writing, and since my friends are getting married in droves, I have a lot of thoughts about weddings.  The payment came through the next day.  I also wrote an article about how to make airline travel quicker and easier ($1.00, 300 words), also quickly paid.  Then I started on a HIT that asked me to write a 500 word article including the words &amp;quot;sheer bodystocking.&amp;quot;  I wrote the HIT about something completely unrelated to lingerie (I wrote about sledding in my hometown), added the words &amp;quot;sheer bodystocking&amp;quot; in the middle of a sentence, and submitted.   I wish I could say this had been a conscious quality-control experiment, but I just wasnât paying much attention when I started writing.   My article been pending several days, and Iâm eager to see whether I get my $1.00.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most of you, I assume that these articles are not in fact serving those who want to know how to plan a green wedding or facilitate air travel, but are ending up as word salad on spammy webpages.  (Despite that knowledge, I find myself surprisingly invested in writing good and useful articles â irrational?)  So I saved my text and did a Google search for it a few days later, and got nothing;  Iâll repeat it in a few weeks.  As much as I find AMT tasks strangely soothing, like many of you, I don&#039;t think they always make the internet a better place.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also paid a brief visit to the Turker forums, where there&#039;s a discussion going on about the perceived increase in spammy HITs, whether reporting does any good, whether companies will find out who reported them and reject that person&#039;s HITs, whether Amazon should preemptively screen HITs, and whether class-action lawsuits might do any good.  Interestingly, a few requestors were participating in the discussion too, and one experienced Turker appeared to be in conversations with Amazon&#039;s management.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally (as discussed a little more below), I set up a TwitHawk alert for people tweeting about Amazon Mechanical Turk.  I havenât gotten any Turkers yet, but I did get requestors advertising HITs and a couple of articles about the service.  One article made a good point--Amazon has long relied on customer rankings and data to create a huge part of the service&#039;s value (imagine how lame Amazon would be if only staff could do reviews!), so it was natural they would think to expand into the crowdsourcing space.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== LiveOps ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sheel Tyle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in the process of signing up as an inexperienced bilingual (Spanish &amp;amp; English - I&#039;m conversational, not fluent, in Spanish, but let&#039;s see how much I&#039;m tested on it) LiveOps call center agent.  There are videos on the website from independent agents, testimonials on the sidebar ($15-22/hour), and press releases from various periodicals that try and convince.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five steps that I must follow in order to be &#039;submitted for review&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Validate your email address&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Verify your understanding of the general requirements&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Provide basic information on your background&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assess your comprehension and computer skill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audition your voice &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;basic information&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, here are some of the questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Have you ever contracted your business with LiveOps in the past?, Do you have prior call center experience?, Are you currently licensed to sell both health and life insurance products?, Are you currently licensed to sell both property and casualty insurance products?, Do you have prior experience in sales?, Do you have prior experience taking calls from Radio offers?, Do you have any experience in outbound telemarketing?, Do You Speak, Read and Write Spanish - FLUENTLY?, Do You Speak, Read and Write French - FLUENTLY?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I said &amp;quot;No&amp;quot; to every one except &amp;quot;Yes&amp;quot; to speaking Spanish.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, under &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;comprehension and computer skill&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, I had to answer questions like: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
Please read this script:&amp;quot;We dont want you to miss out on this great offer, so what I can do for you today is offer you 1 HotBrush for 3 easy payments of $29.99 plus $14.75 to cover processing or you can take advantage of our special offer, the SpeedyHeat model for only $6.67 additional per payment. The SpeedyHeat Model contains a computer chip which lets your HotBrush heat up faster and hold a more even temperature just like the most expensive professional quality hot tools. So, would you like to order the HotBrush or the SpeedyHeat Model?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this script, is the customer choosing between two different products or are they deciding whether to add a product (for two products total)?&lt;br /&gt;
Deciding whether to add a product&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing between two different products&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;  What is the keyboard shortcut to move between windows you already have open on your computer?&lt;br /&gt;
Hold down the &amp;quot;Alt&amp;quot; button and press the &amp;quot;Tab&amp;quot; button&lt;br /&gt;
Drag the window offscreen&lt;br /&gt;
Click the appropriate button in the task bar&lt;br /&gt;
Close the program you are currently working in, and open a new one&lt;br /&gt;
Minimize the window you are currently working in &#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the voice test.  LiveOps asked me to call in to a 1-800 number and, when prompted, read two passages: one in English and one in Spanish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Submitted.  Once I hear back, I&#039;ll update whether I was accepted =)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ramesh Nagarajan ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve completed the agent qualification process to become a LiveOps representative. Sheel did a good job of explaining the basics of the qualification process, so I&#039;ll share two observations I had about the process. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, there&#039;s a fair amount of legal language LiveOps uses, with the intention of disclaiming any liability or even the existence of much of a relationship between it and its contractors. One must agree to the following: &amp;quot;I understand that LiveOps will investigate all of my information provided during the Agent Qualification process, and that Certification of my home business to contract with LiveOps will be contingent upon successful completion of a criminal and credit background check.&amp;quot;  They aren&#039;t currently accepting Massachusetts residents as LiveOps contractors -- perhaps Massachusetts&#039;s laws are too worker-friendly -- so I hope that means I get to avoid the &amp;quot;criminal and credit background check.&amp;quot; Also, I didn&#039;t have to provide a Social Security Number, which makes me wonder if there is a real background check. Going back to the phrase I agreed to, I found it interesting that LiveOps representatives are setting up &amp;quot;home business[es] to contract&amp;quot; with LiveOps. There seem to be at least two advantages that LiveOps has over traditional telemarketing and call center companies -- first, it could save money on infrastructure by having employees work out of their own homes and use their own computers and phones, and second, it could save money by not having actual employees. I wonder which is more important, and if the second is a necessary part of the company&#039;s business strategy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a lighter note, the questions for &amp;quot;comprehension and computer skill&amp;quot; were quite entertaining. I was asked if booting a computer meant to turn on the sound, throw it out, turn it on, or add extra drives, and I had to decipher the meaning of a call script. I think there&#039;s a good chance I got one of the questions wrong. It asked what a customer paid today for a product that had &amp;quot;an upfront trial payment&amp;quot; of $15, three monthly payments of $40, and a shipping and handling charge of $10. I answered $15, but when I think about it, maybe it should be $25.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Online mass collaboration project ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Franny Lee ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While waiting for my little sister to finish teaching her last Grade 9 class of 2009, I fell into conversation at an Ottawa (Canada) Starbucks with Russell Maier, a professional collaborative multi-media artist and a fellow fan of peppermint mochas.  Russell is currently cycling around the world to help promote and orchestrate a âplanetary collaborative mosaicâ art/photo project, based upon the ancient cultural concept of  a âmandalaâ.  The first grand â1Mandalaâ is slated to be unveiled in front of the NYC UN Headquarters in May 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The projectâs theme - global peace and togetherness: âAs a celebration of our Oneness we are building a collaborative planetary mandala. Our mosaic 1Mandala is being built out of pictures of people of all places and cultures smiling peace to the world. These &amp;quot;peace portraits&amp;quot; are being arranged into a Mandala-- an ancient circular and geometric art-form long-used by the world&#039;s spiritual traditions for healing, unity and raising consciousnessâ¦ It will be a powerful symbol of humanity united in the intention of peace to each other and the planet. â¨â¨We invite you to share your peace and your portrait with the world.â&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Photo contributions are accepted through the project&#039;s website at http://www.1mandala.org.  From my conversation with Russell, I get the sense that artistic vision currently dominates the project.  Issues of communicating his project to a global audience are forefront (in addition to the website, Russellâs blog of his travels http://missive452.blogspot.com/ and the âdaily e-blastsâ with the âpeace portrait of the dayâ, this project participates in Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, Digg and StumbleUpon), while intellectual property or privacy concerns have not been addressed other than with a simple website privacy policy and release (see 2-paragraph âPrivacy and Releaseâ at http://www.1mandala.org/en/uploader).  Photos are (or will be) screened by a member of his team at some point before the final UN premiere, however, Russell prefers not to interfere with individual contributions unless the photo is deemed absolutely inappropriate.  His logistical vision is to ultimately develop a fully automated online photo contribution process.  There have been very few (I believe less than 5) instances where a photo has been refused - if I recall correctly, one may have involved something about a turkey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After creating my peace picture, I began the online contribution process and was required to register my email address, first name, city and country.  After completing registration, I received an email with instructions for my photo contribution, which included general tips for âpeace portraitsâ and a hyperlink to the contribution uploader webpage.  From there, I completed the web-fillable form by uploading my peace portrait, advising of my city and country, and was given the option of adding a photo caption and including a story about my photo.  A box for the privacy policy and release and a box to confirm that this is an âintentional peace portraitâ must be checked off to proceed to the next steps, which are to crop the photo to the project size as per the instructions provided, and finally, to submit the photo.  I kept experiencing âInternal Server Errorâ messages while trying to submit my peace portrait, and finally contributed through the alternate method of emailing a copy to peace@1mandala.org.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== TwitHawk ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Elisabeth Oppenheimer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(Formerly TwitterHawk, but Twitter made them change the name.)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The TwitHawk space looked forlorn, so I took a quick look at it.  It&#039;s pretty clever.  You set up a search -- say, people tweeting about Amazon Mechanical Turk within 25 miles of Palo Alto -- and the app updates you when someone tweets on that topic.  You also set up some prepared responses (&amp;quot;Iâm studying Amazon Mechanical Turk for a class, how has your experience with it been?&amp;quot;) which are automatically sent to anyone who matches your search.  You can also change the settings such that you need to confirm before sending your message, or so that you automatically follow anyone you message.  It&#039;s basically a marketing tool: in the example they give, a coffee shop searches for local people tweeting about a desire for coffee, and then sends them the address of the shop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concern in the press coverage is that this will massively spam Twitter users, but the owners have taken some useful steps to prevent this--you have to pay 5 cents per message, you can only send one message to a given user, and you can only send one message every two hours.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m impressed with the service, although Iâm still fundamentally stunned that Twitter and Twitter apps have morphed so quickly from a &amp;quot;huh? why would you want to do that?&amp;quot; phenomenon to a &amp;quot;cornerstone of all cool marketing campaigns&amp;quot; phenomenon.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Experiences_in_Crowd_Sourcing&amp;diff=194</id>
		<title>Experiences in Crowd Sourcing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Experiences_in_Crowd_Sourcing&amp;diff=194"/>
		<updated>2010-01-04T03:54:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Elisabeth: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Mechanical Turk  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Daniel Arbix ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have signed up to Mechanical Turk as a Brazilian citizen (not all HIT opportunities were available, then). I have tried to explore different tasks to check the diversity the platform offers for workers. There are some amusing tasks to be performed, but most â against the websiteâs Participation Terms â, are boring schemes to distort internet advertisement payments or to gather active e-mails (for spam or worse, I presume). There are also numerous HITs which demand fake reviews of products and websites, or which require âturksâ to show support to social-networking profiles or events, and even to write posts in blogs making compliments to the blog ownerâs clever analyses. A short summary of my experiences follows.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;1st try&#039;&#039;: bad page design, no $&lt;br /&gt;
I saw a task as available, was able to follow the instructions and actually perform it on a third party website, but then I realized that the event that would trigger a confirmation number required for my payment had already expired, so of course no payment was made to my account. This was the first contact I had with HITs designed to redirect traffic to earn advertisement revenues (it was described as âa test for page load time, very easy, for USD 2.00â).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;2nd try&#039;&#039;: the second HIT I tried had the following misleading instructions:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;This HIT is an easy to complete &#039;sign up&#039; assignment. It shouldn&#039;t take you longer than 2 minutes to complete. Many thanks for your time! Simply go to: http://www.awin1.com/awclick.php?mid=633&amp;amp;id=93282  Sign up. Then send a print screen of your confirmation email to: mark.studentearnings@gmail.com and write your username and approximate time of sign up in the box below&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
The site redirected me to http://www.offersclick.co.uk/offers/SiteRender.aspx?SiteID=501&amp;amp;ThemeID=21&amp;amp;q14259=AFW&amp;amp;q26274=93282  Again, it seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenuesâ¦&lt;br /&gt;
It was impossible to complete the task within the assigned time â the form-filling advertisements website took too much to load â, so I returned the HIT (and received no $, in spite of losing a lot of time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;3rd try&#039;&#039;: the HIT had the following description:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Complete free online quote form. MUST BE 18 OR OLDER AND LIVE IN USA TO COMPLETE THIS HIT Visit Site - Enter Name and Email - Takes less than a minute. IMPORTANT: Eligible only to those who have not yet signed up to this offer. Please don&#039;t use disposable e-mails as well. Let&#039;s keep this site honest.  INSTRUCTION:  1) To get started, visit this website:  http://www.aislezone.com/mturk-offer02.php   2) Select make, model and enter zip code. Click &amp;quot;get quotes&amp;quot;  3) Complete the form and click on &amp;quot;get free dealer quotes&amp;quot; REQUIRED PROOF:  On activation confirmation copy/paste or type full text to the box below starting with : &amp;quot;Sent!...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
The time-description was fair, and I received payment after two days. I also (stupidly) provided my real Stanford e-mail, with the result of getting my mailbox now filled by car dealers messages. Again, the HIT seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;4th try&#039;&#039;: the HIT had the following description:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Data Collection-Google Results   Reward: $1.25 per HIT  Insert address, perform google searches and indicate first result&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
This HIT was an honest one, requiring a verification of search results (Google), all related to the same company. Time description was fair, and my $ arrived a day later.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;5th try&#039;&#039;: the HIT had the following description:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Rate faces of candidates running for office.  Usually takes less than 5 minutes.  You can find the survey here:  http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/207922/faces3  At the end of the survey, you&#039;ll find a code. To get paid, please enter the code below:&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
This was a fun, quick HIT. It had a fair time description, and payment was received after a day. I was, however, a terrible subject for the MIT social psychology survey, since most pictures to be rated are of Brazilian politiciansâ¦&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Jason Harrow ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It all started out so promisingly. Before I even started, I was excited because &amp;quot;Mechanical Turk&amp;quot; is such a great name. What did it mean? What was mechanical about it? And who or what is the âTurkâ in the transaction? Then, in the back of my mind: isnât that somehow vaguely racist?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wikipedia would know what a Mechanical Turk is, of course. So I searched for it, and I immediately found my answer. The Mechanical Turk was a chess playing âmachineâ that, âfrom 1770 until its destruction by fire in 1854 . . . was exhibited by various owners as an automaton, though it was explained in the early 1820s as an elaborate hoax.â Something thought to be a form of artificial intelligence later explained to be just a smart guy in a box? How cool is that? Could there be a more perfect name for this service? I made a mental note that if I am ever in the position to pick a name for an Internet company or service, I will find out who chose &amp;quot;Mechanical Turk&amp;quot; and consult him or her. I couldnât have been more excited to get started.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I logged in with my Amazon ID and created my Amazon payment account. Unlike Daniel (above), I am a US citizen; also unlike Daniel, I chose to go first for a little assignment that paid $.02 per HIT. My task was to go to the website of a given educational institution, type in when the spring semester 2010 started, and give the URL of the Academic Calendar page confirming this. I did one successfully and submitted it. It took about 90 seconds. Easiest job of my life. Bring on a few more.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next one took longer and bore no fruit, though: the little Midwestern barbershop college that was assigned to me didnât display when their spring semester started (side thought: do barbershop colleges even have spring semesters?). That was frustrating; all that effort, and no shiny pennies at the end of the rainbow. And why in the world does this guy â Aaron Smyth, whoever that is â even want to include barbershop colleges in his survey? What could he possibly be doing with that data? I pressed on and did a few more start dates before trying to find something else. It got boring pretty quickly, and I realized that 2 cents wasnât really worth it beyond the initial thrill of it all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Daniel, I then encountered what later became obvious as a scam: someone who said theyâd pay me money for signing up, but the time given was too fast and there was no way to actually verify that I completed the task in the way they said I needed to. This made me angry. How in the world does Amazon â one of my favorite companies on the planet, by the way â let them get away with this? I reported the bastards, but I donât know what happened to that complaint. A few days later, Mechanical Turk still seems littered with these scams. Thatâs disappointing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I turned to a final HIT, what seemed like just an individual who wanted me to go to his website and post any kind of comment, just for the sake of getting more hits. Seemed a little shady, but I gave it a try and duly posted a comment. Days later, I got the bad news: rejected! I wouldnât be getting the shiny nickel I was promised. Hey Amazon: how is that allowed?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was once so excited by the great name and the prospect of making easy money, but I&#039;m now deeply disappointed with both the requesters and with Amazon. Why did all the posters seem so scammy? Why aren&#039;t there any tasks that seem interesting and worthwhile? And how does Amazon let the requesters get away with this? I felt somehow betrayed by an Internet company that I feel oddly loyal to; it was as if HBO launched a new channel that turned out to be entirely infomercials. Get your act together, Mr. Bezos!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I logged into my account a few days later. The final tally was 8 HITs accepted; 4 submitted; 1 returned; 3 abandoned; 3 approved; 1 rejected; and, in the end, 6 measly American cents earned. I wish that the original chess-playing Mechanical Turk hadnât been destroyed in 1854. That Mechanical Turk might have been a sight to see. This one isnât.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Lien Ceulemans ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After all the Christmas presents I had to buy for my family, I thought that a good way to earn some money (while doing my homework) was to volunteer as a mechanical turk. &lt;br /&gt;
A Google search brought me to the Amazon mechanical turk website (https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before starting, I first had to create a payment account and accept the 6 pages long âAmazon Mechanical Turk Participation Agreementâ, thereby exclusively granting my intellectual property rights to the âRequesterâ. Furthermore, this agreement informed me that, as a mechanical turk, I would perform a âwork for hireâ âand would ânot be entitled [â¦] to any vacation pay, sick leave, insurance programs, including group health insurance or retirement benefits; or [â¦] worker&#039;s compensation benefits in the event of injury.â &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amazon describes its platform as âa marketplace for work that requires human intelligenceâ There is indeed no sign of a worldwide crisis, as 306,354 âHuman Intelligence Tasksâ or âHITâsâ were available. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I started with an easy, quite boring assignment that would pay me 0.05 dollar for each correct hit: âFind the Website Address for a Restaurant and its Menuâ. Since at that time, my âvalueâ was still rated at 100, I met the qualification requirement. While the website of âMerlo La Trattoriaâ in Chicago is quite easy to find, I ran into difficulties after a few hits. The address of the âBrazil steakâ house was only indicated in Chinese characters in the assignment, so I got completely lost at Google. It was time for another challengeâ¦&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For my next HIT, I had to âwrite a short answer about carsâ of 50 to 60 words. Since I do not know anything about cars, this seemed the perfect HIT to test the reliability of the mechanical turk platform. To my best knowledge, I answered the question âHow do I clean a mass air flow sensor on my Mercury?â as follows: âThis is very easy to clean. You just take some water and soap that smells delicious and pour the water into the mass air flow sensor. If it is still not clean enough, repeat this process for a couple of times. You will see that your mass air flow sensor will look brand new again.â Although the HIT explanation mentioned that no qualification was required, after performing the hit, my answer was âsubmitted to conjecture corporation and [would] be approved or rejected shortly.â A few hours later, I received a âQualification Request Rejection Notificationâ email âfor Amazon Mechanical Turk. Despite I failed the test question, I did receive the 0.03 dollar reward for participating in this HIT. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After this, I decided to find a HIT which was more related to my field of knowledge. For different law schools, I needed to find the final fall application deadline for 2010 and the URL of website where I found the information. There were still 53 HITS available with a reward of 0.05 dollar each. Although the HIT information indicated that each HIT would take me around 10 minutes, I managed to complete a single HIT in about 4 minutes. This would thus result in an hourly wage of 0.75 dollar. Taking into account both the operating costs (e.g. electricity, internet, etc.) and the opportunity costs involved, I wonder who - besides âDifficult Problems in Cyberlawâ students - is willing to be a mechanical turk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I got very bored, I tried to perform another HIT that required me to find the date, parties and subject of so-called âtop secret letters of the US war departmentâ. While this sounds as a very exciting and interesting assignment, in reality, trying to analyze unreadable pdfâs was not that fun. I decided to give it a last try, but had a hard time to find any attractive assignment. In the end, I participated in a research of the UNC Charlotte Human Computer Interaction Lab that does research in policy making decisions for social applications. After giving my âInformed Consent for Social Application Decision Makingâ, I had to indicate whether (i) I would or would not accept a certain Facebook application and (ii) share information of my Facebook friends with this application. Although this was not really interesting, this HIT gave me at least a good feeling as I contributed to university research. This was perfect to end my life as a mechanical turk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today (i.e. 5 days after submitted more than 20 hits), my Amazon Payment Account indicates that the approval of my submitted HITâs is still pending. This means that so far, I only earned 0.03 dollars for 2 hours of labor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Juan Cheng ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I signed up to Mechanical Turk to complete a HIT. Before I decided which one to work on, I browsed the available HITs to see what kind of jobs are offered there. Because I wanted to know what is the difference between the HITs and the tasks in physical work environment. I found most of the HITs are trivial, boring and kind of meaningless. One of the HITs even highlighted that âthis job is only for [a person&#039;s name]. Anyone else will be rejectedâ. This is so weird. Why the requester just ask the person he designate to finish the job offline? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I finally decided to work on a HIT which asked the worker to find the official website address for a restaurant and its menu. The requester provided the full name, address and telephone number of the restaurant to help target the object. It&#039;s pretty easy. I just surfed on Google and found the website address in 2 minutes. As requested, I attached the URL of the website address and that of the menu and submitted the HITs on December 28, 2009. Then I returned to my account to see the status. It showed that the HIT I submitted was pending for approval/rejection by the requester. Up to now, I have not been approved or rejected yet. I&#039;ve sent a email to the requester to check. Will follow up. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing to note is before I selected the HIT above, I accepted several other HITs to try to work on them. I then returned them because they were very boring and time consuming. I supposed Mechanical Turk would not made a record for this. However, they actually did and even recorded the submitted, returned and abandoned rates based on the total HITs I accepted. It makes me feel like I&#039;m an employee of Mechanical Turk and they will probably evaluate my performance based on these rates and other data, e.g. the feedback from the requester. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I guess the requester offered this HIT for at least two purposes. One is to get more people know the restaurant. Actually I really like the style of the website and I would try this restaurant if I happen to be around. The other might be to get more people search it on Google. If there are plenty of search on this term, the name of the restaurant appears as a google suggest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Victoria Baranetsky ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So fascinating. I âplayedâ on Mechanical Turk for several days doing a variety of hits. I had never participated on Mechanical Turk before but soon became a junkie. Spending an embarrassing amount of time on it. Some tasks kept me entertained longer then others. The ones I like I would repeat over and over. And when I got bored with one I moved onto the next. Here is a short list of a few of the HITs that I participated in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first was a psychological study, I assume. The task was to rate the attractiveness of people in 30 photos from 1 (least attractive to 10 (most attractive). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second was called âBasketball Tracking.â As footage of a basketball game played I was assigned to move a box over the image of the player. (A somewhat simpler version of Duck Hunt).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third was named âTag Fashion Magazine Covers.â As you clicked through different covers of beauty magazines the task was to categorize the predominant color on the cover (e.g. blue, green or red), the âlookâ (e.g. sexy, glamorous, or charming) and the brand of magazine (e.g. Vogue, Cosmo or Hustler). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fourth was a photo identifier of cars. A car listing including the model and year was provided and the HIT required that the Turker find a matching photo for that specific car. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After I did these HITs I wanted to do something a little more thought provoking so I took three qualifying exams that were simple multiple choice questions including my place of birth, age and degree of education. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In total there are several things that struck me while âplayingâ with mechanical Turk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, the diversity of HITs was fascinating. The HITS were all over the board â going to show the incredible ability for Turk to be a great tool for a plethora of organizations. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, although the diversity was phenomenal I was a bit hesitant with every HIT because I didnât know the purpose or reason for what I was doing. For example, the psychological study that asked me to rate the beauty of the persons in the photographs was bizarre in asking me for a waiver. The waiver explained that I was not allowed to bring suit for my work in this study and that I had no monetary rights. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only was the purpose concealed but the member asking for the HIT is not revealed. Although there is a name for example âPaul Goldsteinâ is listed as the requester â further information is not available. I think this lack of transparency is troublesome. Anonymity certainly promotes more use of Mechanical Turk but it seems when some tasks could perhaps have malicious purposes, transparency would be good. In addition, transparency of the Turkers also would make their work more veritable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, the final thing that troubled me on Mechanical Turk was the addictive quality of the tasks. By placing money into the equation one feels that playing, categorizing and writing reviews - in essence what is wasting time is perhaps a valuable to spend time. The games become frighteningly more appealing and what begins as a 45-minute endeavor turns into several hours of clicking, tagging and reading. I felt like a better at Atlantic City â pulling the proverbial lever at the slot machine over and over again.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Andrew Jacobs ===&lt;br /&gt;
I also experimented with Amazonâs Mechanical Turk. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first HIT was to transcribe a 30 second audio clip. From the perspective of a new mturk worker, I was entirely satisfied with the experience. I could preview the audio clip before accepting the HIT, so as not to commit myself to garbled mumbling and subsequently damage my reputation by abandoning the task. The content turned out to be a snippet of Biblical interpretation. I accepted, did my best (bracketing a few words I wasnât sure of, including âMillenialistsâ), and a few days later received two cents in my payments account for approximately three minutes of work. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a slightly more critical perspective, this HIT got me thinking about economic and noneconomic incentives. As an unpaid intern for a literary magazine a few years ago, I transcribed a two-hour roundtable discussion among five barely distinguishable voices, recorded on a cheap, analog tape recorder. Though the task was awful, I worked on it diligently, mostly because I liked the editors and believed in their cause. If that alleged âMillenialistâ word had popped up, I certainly would have gone to greater lengths to verify it than I did here, even though I risked two whole cents in this case. What if, then, there were a volunteer crowdsourcing tool for this requesterâs particular brand of Christianity? Or, more plausibly, a general volunteer crowdsourcing website that grouped unpaid tasks by the causes that their completion furthered? The results might well be of higher quality than mturkâs, and I imagine those volunteer sites would avoid some thorny labor issues that Amazon faces. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My second HIT, which a few others have mentioned, was easy: I was to find the URLs for the main website and the menu of a given restaurant, at five cents a pop. (If either of these websites proved nonexistent, there was space to say so, and I still got my nickel.)  Though it took a couple more days than the first HIT, I was eventually paid $.15 for my three finds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mindless, but not grating, simplicity of this HIT made me think a bit about how mturkâs economic incentives may be better utilized without increasing their value. In order to shift my earning to an Amazon Gift Certificate, for example, I have to follow a handful of steps and type in exactly how much I want to transfer. Why canât I have my account be directly and continuously tied to a Gift Certificate? And why not have a âHIT itâ button along with âBuyâ in Amazonâs retail stores? If there wasnât enough money in my Payments account, the button would take me to my mturk account so I could earn some more. One of the most valuable things I can get for less than a dollar, in my mind, is an Amazon MP3. If Iâm working for tiny sums anyway, I might be more motivated if my tiny carrot were a more direct embodiment of value. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now that I have a Mechanical Turk account, will I use it again? Maybe. Like Victoria, I had some fun completing the âTag Fashion Coversâ HITs (though at first the âsubmitâ button in their dialog box was malfunctioning). Perhaps even as much fun as, say, those last twenty minutes of bopping around on the Internet before bed. I smell a New Yearâs resolution. . .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Elisabeth Oppenheimer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too spent some time on Mechanical Turk.  I&#039;d used it a few times before, which was enough to teach me to stay far away from $.02 tasks.  They&#039;re boring, they often just don&#039;t work, and they pay $.02.  But I actually enjoy some of the higher-paid tasks, especially writing articles.  So I sorted the available HITs by wage and started with the one that paid the most, $4.17/hour.  That seemed like an unbelievably high wage, particularly since it only asked me to look at a website and review it.  After I&#039;d glanced at the website, though, I realized that it was impossible to submit the HIT.  Clever spam: the highest-priced task gets lots of viewers, who click through to the ad-loaded website, whose operators are presumably paid per view (or just hope some Turkers will click through).  The operators didnât any up paying for any HITs, so voilaâfree traffic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Moderately disgruntled, I found a $1.70 HIT to write a 300 word piece about green weddings.  It took maybe 5 minutes to complete, and I had fun--law students don&#039;t get to do much free writing, and since my friends are getting married in droves, I have a lot of thoughts about weddings.  The payment came through the next day.  I also wrote an article about how to make airline travel quicker and easier ($1.00, 300 words), also quickly paid.  Then I started on a HIT that asked me to write a 500 word article including the words &amp;quot;sheer bodystocking.&amp;quot;  I wrote the HIT about something completely unrelated to lingerie (I wrote about sledding in my hometown), added the words &amp;quot;sheer bodystocking&amp;quot; in the middle of a sentence, and submitted.   I wish I could say this had been a conscious quality-control experiment, but I just wasnât paying much attention when I started writing.   My article been pending several days, and Iâm eager to see whether I get my $1.00.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most of you, I assume that these articles are not in fact serving those who want to know how to plan a green wedding or facilitate air travel, but are ending up as word salad on spammy webpages.  (Despite that knowledge, I find myself surprisingly invested in writing good and useful articles â irrational?)  So I saved my text and did a Google search for it a few days later, and got nothing;  Iâll repeat it in a few weeks. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also paid a brief visit to the Turker forums, where there&#039;s a discussion going on about the perceived increase in spammy HITs, whether reporting does any good, whether companies will find out who reported them and reject that person&#039;s HITs, whether Amazon should preemptively screen HITs, and whether class-action lawsuits might do any good.  Interestingly, a few requestors were participating in the discussion too, and one experienced Turker appeared to be in conversations with Amazon&#039;s management.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally (as discussed a little more below), I set up a TwitHawk alert for people tweeting about Amazon Mechanical Turk.  I havenât gotten any Turkers yet, but I did get requestors advertising HITs and a couple of articles about the service.  One article made a good point--Amazon has long relied on customer rankings and data to create a huge part of the service&#039;s value (imagine how lame Amazon would be if only staff could do reviews!), so it was natural they would think to expand into the crowdsourcing space.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== LiveOps ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sheel Tyle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in the process of signing up as an inexperienced bilingual (Spanish &amp;amp; English - I&#039;m conversational, not fluent, in Spanish, but let&#039;s see how much I&#039;m tested on it) LiveOps call center agent.  There are videos on the website from independent agents, testimonials on the sidebar ($15-22/hour), and press releases from various periodicals that try and convince.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five steps that I must follow in order to be &#039;submitted for review&#039;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Validate your email address&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Verify your understanding of the general requirements&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Provide basic information on your background&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assess your comprehension and computer skill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audition your voice &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;basic information&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, here are some of the questions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Have you ever contracted your business with LiveOps in the past?, Do you have prior call center experience?, Are you currently licensed to sell both health and life insurance products?, Are you currently licensed to sell both property and casualty insurance products?, Do you have prior experience in sales?, Do you have prior experience taking calls from Radio offers?, Do you have any experience in outbound telemarketing?, Do You Speak, Read and Write Spanish - FLUENTLY?, Do You Speak, Read and Write French - FLUENTLY?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I said &amp;quot;No&amp;quot; to every one except &amp;quot;Yes&amp;quot; to speaking Spanish.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then, under &#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;comprehension and computer skill&#039;&#039;&#039;&#039;, I had to answer questions like: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
Please read this script:&amp;quot;We dont want you to miss out on this great offer, so what I can do for you today is offer you 1 HotBrush for 3 easy payments of $29.99 plus $14.75 to cover processing or you can take advantage of our special offer, the SpeedyHeat model for only $6.67 additional per payment. The SpeedyHeat Model contains a computer chip which lets your HotBrush heat up faster and hold a more even temperature just like the most expensive professional quality hot tools. So, would you like to order the HotBrush or the SpeedyHeat Model?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this script, is the customer choosing between two different products or are they deciding whether to add a product (for two products total)?&lt;br /&gt;
Deciding whether to add a product&lt;br /&gt;
Choosing between two different products&#039;&#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;  What is the keyboard shortcut to move between windows you already have open on your computer?&lt;br /&gt;
Hold down the &amp;quot;Alt&amp;quot; button and press the &amp;quot;Tab&amp;quot; button&lt;br /&gt;
Drag the window offscreen&lt;br /&gt;
Click the appropriate button in the task bar&lt;br /&gt;
Close the program you are currently working in, and open a new one&lt;br /&gt;
Minimize the window you are currently working in &#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, the voice test.  LiveOps asked me to call in to a 1-800 number and, when prompted, read two passages: one in English and one in Spanish.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Submitted.  Once I hear back, I&#039;ll update whether I was accepted =)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ramesh Nagarajan ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve completed the agent qualification process to become a LiveOps representative. Sheel did a good job of explaining the basics of the qualification process, so I&#039;ll share two observations I had about the process. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, there&#039;s a fair amount of legal language LiveOps uses, with the intention of disclaiming any liability or even the existence of much of a relationship between it and its contractors. One must agree to the following: &amp;quot;I understand that LiveOps will investigate all of my information provided during the Agent Qualification process, and that Certification of my home business to contract with LiveOps will be contingent upon successful completion of a criminal and credit background check.&amp;quot;  They aren&#039;t currently accepting Massachusetts residents as LiveOps contractors -- perhaps Massachusetts&#039;s laws are too worker-friendly -- so I hope that means I get to avoid the &amp;quot;criminal and credit background check.&amp;quot; Also, I didn&#039;t have to provide a Social Security Number, which makes me wonder if there is a real background check. Going back to the phrase I agreed to, I found it interesting that LiveOps representatives are setting up &amp;quot;home business[es] to contract&amp;quot; with LiveOps. There seem to be at least two advantages that LiveOps has over traditional telemarketing and call center companies -- first, it could save money on infrastructure by having employees work out of their own homes and use their own computers and phones, and second, it could save money by not having actual employees. I wonder which is more important, and if the second is a necessary part of the company&#039;s business strategy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a lighter note, the questions for &amp;quot;comprehension and computer skill&amp;quot; were quite entertaining. I was asked if booting a computer meant to turn on the sound, throw it out, turn it on, or add extra drives, and I had to decipher the meaning of a call script. I think there&#039;s a good chance I got one of the questions wrong. It asked what a customer paid today for a product that had &amp;quot;an upfront trial payment&amp;quot; of $15, three monthly payments of $40, and a shipping and handling charge of $10. I answered $15, but when I think about it, maybe it should be $25.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Online mass collaboration project ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Franny Lee ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While waiting for my little sister to finish teaching her last Grade 9 class of 2009, I fell into conversation at an Ottawa (Canada) Starbucks with Russell Maier, a professional collaborative multi-media artist and a fellow fan of peppermint mochas.  Russell is currently cycling around the world to help promote and orchestrate a âplanetary collaborative mosaicâ art/photo project, based upon the ancient cultural concept of  a âmandalaâ.  The first grand â1Mandalaâ is slated to be unveiled in front of the NYC UN Headquarters in May 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The projectâs theme - global peace and togetherness: âAs a celebration of our Oneness we are building a collaborative planetary mandala. Our mosaic 1Mandala is being built out of pictures of people of all places and cultures smiling peace to the world. These &amp;quot;peace portraits&amp;quot; are being arranged into a Mandala-- an ancient circular and geometric art-form long-used by the world&#039;s spiritual traditions for healing, unity and raising consciousnessâ¦ It will be a powerful symbol of humanity united in the intention of peace to each other and the planet. â¨â¨We invite you to share your peace and your portrait with the world.â&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Photo contributions are accepted through the project&#039;s website at http://www.1mandala.org.  From my conversation with Russell, I get the sense that artistic vision currently dominates the project.  Issues of communicating his project to a global audience are forefront (in addition to the website, Russellâs blog of his travels http://missive452.blogspot.com/ and the âdaily e-blastsâ with the âpeace portrait of the dayâ, this project participates in Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, Digg and StumbleUpon), while intellectual property or privacy concerns have not been addressed other than with a simple website privacy policy and release (see 2-paragraph âPrivacy and Releaseâ at http://www.1mandala.org/en/uploader).  Photos are (or will be) screened by a member of his team at some point before the final UN premiere, however, Russell prefers not to interfere with individual contributions unless the photo is deemed absolutely inappropriate.  His logistical vision is to ultimately develop a fully automated online photo contribution process.  There have been very few (I believe less than 5) instances where a photo has been refused - if I recall correctly, one may have involved something about a turkey.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After creating my peace picture, I began the online contribution process and was required to register my email address, first name, city and country.  After completing registration, I received an email with instructions for my photo contribution, which included general tips for âpeace portraitsâ and a hyperlink to the contribution uploader webpage.  From there, I completed the web-fillable form by uploading my peace portrait, advising of my city and country, and was given the option of adding a photo caption and including a story about my photo.  A box for the privacy policy and release and a box to confirm that this is an âintentional peace portraitâ must be checked off to proceed to the next steps, which are to crop the photo to the project size as per the instructions provided, and finally, to submit the photo.  I kept experiencing âInternal Server Errorâ messages while trying to submit my peace portrait, and finally contributed through the alternate method of emailing a copy to peace@1mandala.org.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== TwitHawk ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Elisabeth Oppenheimer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(Formerly TwitterHawk, but Twitter made them change the name.)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The TwitHawk space looked forlorn, so I took a quick look at it.  It&#039;s pretty clever.  You set up a search -- say, people tweeting about Amazon Mechanical Turk within 25 miles of Palo Alto -- and the app updates you when someone tweets on that topic.  You also set up some prepared responses (&amp;quot;Iâm studying Amazon Mechanical Turk for a class, how has your experience with it been?&amp;quot;) which are automatically sent to anyone who matches your search.  You can also change the settings such that you need to confirm before sending your message, or so that you automatically follow anyone you message.  It&#039;s basically a marketing tool: in the example they give, a coffee shop searches for local people tweeting about a desire for coffee, and then sends them the address of the shop.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concern in the press coverage is that this will massively spam Twitter users, but the owners have taken some useful steps to prevent this--you have to pay 5 cents per message, you can only send one message to a given user, and you can only send one message every two hours.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;m impressed with the service, although Iâm still fundamentally stunned that Twitter and Twitter apps have morphed so quickly from a &amp;quot;huh? why would you want to do that?&amp;quot; phenomenon to a &amp;quot;cornerstone of all cool marketing campaigns&amp;quot; phenomenon.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Elisabeth</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>