https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Juanc 2026-04-21T11:33:23Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.43.6 https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=GNI_Brainstorming&diff=830 2010-01-15T20:26:51Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>* Remember, GNI is about government privacy, not consumer privacy.<br /> *GNI is about free expression, privacy, responsible company decision making.<br /> <br /> = Problems =<br /> <br /> == Membership ==<br /> <br /> # Who should be in the GNI?<br /> # Why do companies have to join GNI when they can just follow principles and not bind themselves and make themselves a target?<br /> # Do we need different GNIs? <br /> ## One for hardware, for software, service providers? or different policies/implementation guidance?<br /> ## Different tiers representing different levels of commitment?<br /> # How do we incentivize joining?<br /> ## What are the benefits of joining GNI?<br /> ### Expanding the scope of service of GNI as a way to incentivize small companies?<br /> ### Subpoena resistance clinic?<br /> # How should GNI work?<br /> ## an organization where only members can participate and benefit, or a forum where companies can share practice about HR protection?<br /> # How should the complaint process work?<br /> ## Accessibility<br /> <br /> == Publicity / Branding ==<br /> <br /> We need a logo! Let's get some logos for our presentation.<br /> <br /> == What should GNI be doing ==<br /> <br /> 1. Subpoena resistance? Is this a problem people are really facing?<br /> <br /> - Is this more a problem for companies that are not part of GNI? This a way to incentivize small companies to join?<br /> <br /> - What do small companies care about privacy? Maybe they do<br /> <br /> - A chart with some basic explanation of how ECPA works http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/ecpanotes.htm#sub<br /> <br /> - Recognize that don't always need to fight subpoena. There are legit requests even in repressive regimes.<br /> <br /> - Can we do something with the Google Italy case?<br /> <br /> - But a lot of these cases will be in places that don't speak English.<br /> <br /> - Europe harder to share litigation costs because many don't have case law system.<br /> <br /> - Subpoena resistance clinic too broad. We need to think &quot;All these subpoenas out there against companies. Is there some way that GNI can help?&quot;<br /> <br /> == Google.cn annoucment ==<br /> <br /> Is it a failure that Google didn't go to the GNI with their decision to make the China announcement or during their investigation?<br /> <br /> == Alternatives to GNI ==<br /> <br /> # Maybe GNI is a nice try but not working? In that case, how do we solve the problems of privacy and free expression internationally?<br /> # More general international privacy rules?<br /> <br /> = Potential Solutions to these problems =<br /> <br /> == Subpoena Resistance ==<br /> <br /> Is there a way that GNI could play a role in helping organizations determine the validity of subpoenas and to determine whether compliance with a given subpoenas is supported by GNI principles?<br /> <br /> Could be a pool of lawyers/students that can review subpoenas, such as a clinic, or could be the preparation of a toolkit to make subpoena analysis easier for companies with few resources.<br /> <br /> == Branding ==<br /> <br /> * New Logo?<br /> ** Would this be like a the GNI &quot;stamp of approval&quot; that we talked about in class<br /> ** Could this logo appear on privacy pages of participating companies to build the GNI brand?<br /> * New name?<br /> ** &quot;Global Network Initiative&quot; seems very bland, generic and easy to forget<br /> * Promotional material<br /> ** Brochure?<br /> ** Video?<br /> * building up community?<br /> * resources to use: chilling effects, herdict, etc.</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=GNI_Brainstorming&diff=829 2010-01-15T20:26:04Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>* Remember, GNI is about government privacy, not consumer privacy.<br /> *GNI is about free expression, privacy, responsible company decision making.<br /> <br /> = Problems =<br /> <br /> == Membership ==<br /> <br /> # Who should be in the GNI?<br /> # Why do companies have to join GNI when they can just follow principles and not bind themselves and make themselves a target?<br /> # Do we need different GNIs? <br /> ## One for hardware, for software, service providers? or different policies/implementation guidance?<br /> ## Different tiers representing different levels of commitment?<br /> # How do we incentivize joining?<br /> ## What are the benefits of joining GNI?<br /> ### Expanding the scope of service of GNI as a way to incentivize small companies?<br /> ### Subpoena resistance clinic?<br /> # How should GNI work?<br /> ## an organization where only members can participate and benefit, or a forum where companies can share practice about HR protection?<br /> # How should the complaint process work?<br /> ## Accessibility<br /> <br /> == Publicity / Branding ==<br /> <br /> We need a logo! Let's get some logos for our presentation.<br /> <br /> == What should GNI be doing ==<br /> <br /> 1. Subpoena resistance? Is this a problem people are really facing?<br /> <br /> - Is this more a problem for companies that are not part of GNI? This a way to incentivize small companies to join?<br /> <br /> - What do small companies care about privacy? Maybe they do<br /> <br /> - A chart with some basic explanation of how ECPA works http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/ecpanotes.htm#sub<br /> <br /> - Recognize that don't always need to fight subpoena. There are legit requests even in repressive regimes.<br /> <br /> - Can we do something with the Google Italy case?<br /> <br /> - But a lot of these cases will be in places that don't speak English.<br /> <br /> - Europe harder to share litigation costs because many don't have case law system.<br /> <br /> - Subpoena resistance clinic too broad. We need to think &quot;All these subpoenas out there against companies. Is there some way that GNI can help?&quot;<br /> <br /> == Google.cn annoucment ==<br /> <br /> Is it a failure that Google didn't go to the GNI with their decision to make the China announcement or during their investigation?<br /> <br /> == Alternatives to GNI ==<br /> <br /> # Maybe GNI is a nice try but not working? In that case, how do we solve the problems of privacy and free expression internationally?<br /> # More general international privacy rules?<br /> <br /> = Potential Solutions to these problems =<br /> <br /> == Subpoena Resistance ==<br /> <br /> Is there a way that GNI could play a role in helping organizations determine the validity of subpoenas and to determine whether compliance with a given subpoenas is supported by GNI principles?<br /> <br /> Could be a pool of lawyers/students that can review subpoenas, such as a clinic, or could be the preparation of a toolkit to make subpoena analysis easier for companies with few resources.<br /> <br /> == Branding ==<br /> <br /> * New Logo?<br /> ** Would this be like a the GNI &quot;stamp of approval&quot; that we talked about in class<br /> ** Could this logo appear on privacy pages of participating companies to build the GNI brand?<br /> * New name?<br /> ** &quot;Global Network Initiative&quot; seems very bland, generic and easy to forget<br /> * Promotional material<br /> ** Brochure?<br /> ** Video?<br /> ** building up community?<br /> ** resources to use: chilling effects, herdict, etc.</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=GNI_Brainstorming&diff=828 2010-01-15T20:08:54Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>* Remember, GNI is about government privacy, not consumer privacy.<br /> *GNI is about free expression, privacy, responsible company decision making.<br /> <br /> = Problems =<br /> <br /> == Membership ==<br /> <br /> # Who should be in the GNI?<br /> # Why do companies have to join GNI when they can just follow principles and not bind themselves and make themselves a target?<br /> # Do we need different GNIs? <br /> ## One for hardware, for software, service providers? or different policies/implementation guidance?<br /> ## Different tiers representing different levels of commitment?<br /> # How do we incentivize joining?<br /> ## What are the benefits of joining GNI?<br /> ### Expanding the scope of service of GNI as a way to incentivize small companies?<br /> ### Subpoena resistance clinic?<br /> <br /> == Publicity / Branding ==<br /> <br /> We need a logo! Let's get some logos for our presentation.<br /> <br /> == What should GNI be doing ==<br /> <br /> 1. Subpoena resistance? Is this a problem people are really facing?<br /> <br /> - Is this more a problem for companies that are not part of GNI? This a way to incentivize small companies to join?<br /> <br /> - What do small companies care about privacy? Maybe they do<br /> <br /> - A chart with some basic explanation of how ECPA works http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/ecpanotes.htm#sub<br /> <br /> - Recognize that don't always need to fight subpoena. There are legit requests even in repressive regimes.<br /> <br /> - Can we do something with the Google Italy case?<br /> <br /> - But a lot of these cases will be in places that don't speak English.<br /> <br /> - Europe harder to share litigation costs because many don't have case law system.<br /> <br /> - Subpoena resistance clinic too broad. We need to think &quot;All these subpoenas out there against companies. Is there some way that GNI can help?&quot;<br /> <br /> == Google.cn annoucment ==<br /> <br /> Is it a failure that Google didn't go to the GNI with their decision to make the China announcement or during their investigation?<br /> <br /> == Alternatives to GNI ==<br /> <br /> # Maybe GNI is a nice try but not working? In that case, how do we solve the problems of privacy and free expression internationally?<br /> # More general international privacy rules?<br /> <br /> = Potential Solutions to these problems =<br /> <br /> == Subpoena Resistance ==<br /> <br /> Is there a way that GNI could play a role in helping organizations determine the validity of subpoenas and to determine whether compliance with a given subpoenas is supported by GNI principles?<br /> <br /> Could be a pool of lawyers/students that can review subpoenas, such as a clinic, or could be the preparation of a toolkit to make subpoena analysis easier for companies with few resources.<br /> <br /> == Branding ==<br /> <br /> * New Logo?<br /> ** Would this be like a the GNI &quot;stamp of approval&quot; that we talked about in class<br /> ** Could this logo appear on privacy pages of participating companies to build the GNI brand?<br /> * New name?<br /> ** &quot;Global Network Initiative&quot; seems very bland, generic and easy to forget<br /> * Promotional material<br /> ** Brochure?<br /> ** Video?</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&diff=711 2010-01-13T23:43:36Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>For those who aren't familiar, here are [http://creativecommons.org/dmca/ Creative Commons'] and [http://www.google.com/dmca.html Google's] explanations of DMCA Notice and Takedown Procedures, one example of Due Process online<br /> <br /> ==Should there be Due Process Online==<br /> Yes. <br /> <br /> It's great how the website with the article on the Google death penalty was filled with mostly internal links, which I'm guessing are intended to raise its Google rank.<br /> <br /> ==Due Process Defaults==<br /> <br /> 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). <br /> :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.<br /> :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's intellectual property rights. Here a due process is needed to disable an account on Facebook. How many times does &quot;repeatedly&quot; refer to? Who have the final say on this &quot;infringement&quot; of other people'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. <br /> <br /> ==Google and China==<br /> Although today's class isn't about this topic, it's hard to believe it won't come up. It will be interesting to hear whether the Google guest will have a response to Jason's concern that Google disengaging with China will allow unscrupulous actors to dominate the world's biggest internet market, and that Google, even if it had to make compromises, could do more good than evil by working inside China.<br /> :Yes, The voice of &quot;Google in China&quot; not &quot;Google China&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.</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&diff=699 2010-01-13T22:01:06Z

<p>Juanc: Removing all content from page</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_8_Predictions&diff=698 2010-01-13T22:00:38Z

<p>Juanc: New page: I believe 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 ...</p> <hr /> <div>I believe 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's intellectual property rights. I think here a due process is needed to disable an account on Facebook. How many times does &quot;repeatedly&quot; refer to? Who have the final say on this &quot;infringement&quot; of other people's intellectual property rights? I want 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.</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_6_Predictions&diff=524 2010-01-11T22:41:46Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>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 Finder’s design difficulties, such as costs and trade-offs (between precision and recall, between user-friendliness and number / quality of features, etc). They’ll most likely also summon stories from the interviews discussed in the document we received, perhaps to illustrate content-layer problems with measurement of &quot;information sources reliability&quot;; users’ misunderstandings / trouble with logic operations; and group biases.<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> :Jason: I predict that there will be a good deal of discussion of what Daniel calls the &quot;user-friendliness&quot; aspect of these tools - and I hope there is, because it's critical. Specifically, what is the necessary ratio between DisputeFinder or Herdict &quot;passive users&quot; and &quot;active reporters&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)<br /> <br /> :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's news media, but my guess is that what I read is more disputed than that, but that there just aren'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'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'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)<br /> <br /> ::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's not always the case. DisputeFinder didn'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. <br /> <br /> :: Franny: I agree that a threshold level of dedicated trusted users (see Vicki'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.<br /> <br /> :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'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)<br /> <br /> Emily: <br /> 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 don’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 – even if relatively unimportant, like the location of a fire, or the total number of casualties in a mass shooting— than a compulsively edited, fact-checked tome in the Sunday NY Times magazine, the Economist, or the New Yorker. <br /> <br /> Article 3.5 of the Dispute Finder document, “Determining Trustworthy Sources,” seems a bit absurd. It actually acknowledges the marketability challenges of its own software: “Unfortunately…the sites people actually trust are often those that share the person’s own point of view.” So, again, what is this software and what, really, is the point? Segway into ‘Cross-cutting themes.’ 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. That’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 didn’t need help from Dispute Finder. Richard Jewel had a case. <br /> <br /> Cross-cutting themes: “Change the technology, save the world.” Okay, why not? Isn’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(“now expanding at a pace of about 20,000 people a day.”) Also no shortage of children in custody. Last December, the New York Times obtained – and reported on [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile.html?_r=1&amp;scp=1&amp;sq=new%20york%20family%20court%20juvenile%20department%20of%20justice%20youth&amp;st=cse]— a “confidential draft report” prepared by a task force appointed by NY gov David Paterson: “New York State’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.” Story also says the situation was so bad that the DOJ, at one point, was threatening to “take over.” <br /> <br /> So, if Intel is interested in contributing, how about addressing real problems—helping real people— 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 Kozol’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. <br /> <br /> Interested to hear thoughts on Internet privacy, though I'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'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 'offensive' on blogs?<br /> <br /> Predictions. Guests will be nice. Class will be nice. Hope to hear more about Dispute Finder's business model.<br /> <br /> 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't it still valuable to identify a claim as disputed, especially since this could break DisputeFinder'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 &quot;dispute&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 &quot;dispute&quot; without any link, but I'm not sure that it should be a requirement. Today I entered a disputed claim as &quot;Works prepared by amazon mechanical turkers are considered works for hire under the United States Copyright Act&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)<br /> <br /> :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 &quot;point of view&quot; or &quot;non-neutral&quot; to boost DisputeFinder's database of disputes?<br /> <br /> Victoria: I completely agree with the former point that DisputeFinder'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 &quot;The 2009 Iran Presidential election was rigged,&quot; &quot;&quot; and &quot;Recycling is good for the environment,&quot; &quot;2Pac is dead,&quot; &quot;Dick Cheney is a robot&quot; and &quot;Italians look good.&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.<br /> <br /> Juan: I'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, &quot;trustworthy resources&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.</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_5_Predictions&diff=410 2010-01-08T16:30:43Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>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'd specifically love to ask Phoebe whether she feels that the articles are written from the male gaze and lack the other gender's perspective.<br /> <br /> :: 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's no easy answer to this: while they may not run into strictly legal issues, it could definitely affect reader's trust in the information or fear that they too are vulnerable. <br /> <br /> 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'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's not clear when more means actually less.<br /> <br /> :: Sheel: I'd be interested in hearing Wikimedia's reaction to this: what if people started using CrowdFlower or MechanicalTurk, if they don't already, to pay people 10 cents or so to go edit Wikipedia pages? I know they weren't okay with MyWikiBiz, but this is much more under the radar. Finally, I'd like to hear where the debate is on inclusionists v. exclusionists (meaning those who want to produce the 'integrity' 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'll stay.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;watch list&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 &quot;how does it feel to be a Wikipedian?&quot; - and try to describe the community feeling from the perspective of insiders, and the challenges to bring more people in.<br /> <br /> 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'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.<br /> <br /> Juan: I would like to hear their opinions on<br /> 1. How to deal with vandalism and spams while keeping the generativity of Wikipedia as much as possible. Now they'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. <br /> 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' 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's strategy facing this situation? Is there any possibility to establish some cooperation or strategic partnership between these two on-line encyclopedias? <br /> 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?</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_4_Predictions&diff=374 2010-01-07T18:57:42Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>Amanda: I am very interested to hear Chuck'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'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?).<br /> :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 (&quot;Hackers are simply criminals&quot;, or on the other side &quot;Microsoft is The Man&quot;).<br /> <br /> :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'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%?<br /> <br /> :Elisabeth: I'm also interested in exploring this idea of transplanting &quot;the private industry's culture of innovation and rapid change&quot; into government. When I read government documents, I'm struck by how little they actually say--there'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.)<br /> <br /> Vickie: I'm going to dovetail from Amanda'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'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.<br /> <br /> :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.<br /> <br /> :Elisabeth: easier IDing creates problems specifically in repressive political regimes, and would make GNI's work more difficult.<br /> <br /> Hector: Some of Chuck'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.<br /> <br /> Lien: I'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's not gonna answer that question...<br /> <br /> Reuben: On Tuesday we spent a great deal of time on the attribution problem of cybersecurity which is related to deterrence and retaliation. I'd like to hear more about that, but I'd also like to hear about how we shore up our own defenses and incentivize security. I'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.<br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> 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'll be somewhat flummoxed about what'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'll make a bit of headway in class.<br /> <br /> Michael: Though not quite a prediction, I would like to hear Chuck'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.<br /> <br /> Andrew: Another leftover question from Tuesday is JZ's Wikipedia-esque solution at the logical layer--implementation of bottom-up stuff like ad hoc mesh networking rather than top-down &quot;perimeter defense&quot;, and the transformation of the security problem into a question of numbers (do the people who are passionate about the network succeeding outnumber those who are passionate about its failure). (Hopefully I didn't botch the paraphrase). Neither Jack nor Chuck responded directly to these ideas; perhaps Chuck will today.<br /> <br /> Juan: I would like to hear what are the roles of different parties to address the problem? How can the parties work collaboratively to approach this problem? How can the hacker resources be used efficiently to solve this problem? e.g. use white-hat hackers to hunt down black-hat hackers. <br /> What incentives can be given to ISPs and vulnerable site owners to create secured internet and secured websites?</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Thoughts&diff=371 2010-01-07T18:51:59Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>Tyler: I am wondering if the terms in AMT'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.<br /> <br /> : To paraphrase, the Copyright Act defines a work for hire as (17 U.S.C. 101):<br /> <br /> * 1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment<br /> ** The factors to make determination were listed in the CCNV v Reid case (790 U.S. 730, 1989)<br /> *** The two most important factors are provision of employee benefits and tax treatment (from Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857, 1992)<br /> * OR 2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work if:<br /> ** 1. category: is one of:<br /> *** part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work<br /> *** a translation<br /> *** a supplementary work – adjunct to a work made by another author<br /> *** a compilation<br /> *** an instructional text – systematic instructional activities<br /> *** a test<br /> *** answer material for a test<br /> *** an atlas<br /> ** 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<br /> must fit into one of the 8 categories to be a contracted work made for hire (p132)<br /> Most work produced for HITs would not seem to fall into either of these categories.<br /> <br /> ::Michael: I think many works produced through HITs are going to be considered compilations or collective works. Certainly David'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)<br /> <br /> ::Section 3(a): &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 &quot;work made for hire&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.&quot; [https://www.mturk.com/mturk/conditionsofuse The full policy can be found here.]<br /> <br /> ::Jason: Michael just sort of stole my mojo - I was about to say a similar thing - but Tyler, I guess I too don'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's being used for. But given the Mechanical Turk terms of service that Michael reproduces above - which probably constitutes a &quot;written instrument&quot; - I think the Turker would be hard-pressed to argue that he had zero notice, even if he didn't know specifically what his work would be used for.<br /> <br /> :::Andrew: I think there's certainly enough wiggle room in the words &quot;specially ordered or commissioned&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't know what he was going to do with the cats when he got them. How could he argue that he had &quot;specially ordered or commissioned&quot; them for that compilation at the time of the contract? More generally, I think the 'meeting of the minds' aspect is more important than Jason suggests, given that it's the basis of so much doctrine in contract interpretation. That is, I think it's an open question whether a task which the performer does not know to have a certain purpose can be said to be &quot;specially ordered or commissioned&quot; for that purpose with regard to the written instrument. <br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;original&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?<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;specially ordered or commissioned&quot; language as Andrew mentioned. Also, I'm not sure mention in the terms of service would qualify as a written instrument signed by both parties.<br /> <br /> :::Jason: Hmmm, that'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'd be an ironic copyright suit coming from this group, but we can work around that.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Secondly in addition to transparency I have a problem with the micro-tasking. Although Aaron'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'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?<br /> <br /> Juan: I'm thinking the &quot;addiction&quot; problem Zittrain mentioned. From the requesters' 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 &quot;work&quot; as a full time employee. The downside is &quot;addiction&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. <br /> <br /> Another interesting thing is the responsibility of Ubicomp sites. Lukas said they will not accept works to spam other one'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?</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_3_Predictions&diff=308 2010-01-06T20:43:30Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>Daniel: My guess is that three issues will be focused:<br /> <br /> 1- ''labor rights'' – 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].<br /> <br /> 2- workers’ new ''expectation of complete anonymity'', 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. <br /> <br /> 3- the ''use of UHC for complex, creative tasks'', 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 platform’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].<br /> : Andrew: Since at least some of our guests tonight are &quot;creatives&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. <br /> <br /> 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 “shady employers”.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;independent contractors&quot; or even Mechanical Turks? Will technology re-enact Lochner?<br /> <br /> <br /> Franny:<br /> <br /> 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't think that the negative aspects will be the focus of today's session.<br /> <br /> I would also be interested to hear our guests' thoughts on whether UHC can be applied to tasks in which sensitive information is involved, and if so, how could private content be protected?<br /> <br /> Juan: <br /> <br /> 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' 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. <br /> <br /> 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?</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_1_Thoughts&diff=304 2010-01-06T20:28:41Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>Tyler: I thought JZ's point about &quot;half-assed&quot; censorship was quite interesting. For example, I like the idea that Google created google.cn, while retaining an easy way for people in China to use a Chinese-language, uncensored google.com instead, as a way of convincing the Chinese government that it had taken steps to censor content that it had been ordered to censor but without actually preventing access to anything. A similar example of Microsoft censoring the titles of blogs but not their content was also given that I found interesting. I wonder if there are other, more subtle, behaviors that have been built into products that allow for the appearance of censorship without actually fully implementing the censorship?<br /> : Jason: But notice that how effective this all is depends on what you think about how powerfully the &quot;Principle of Bovinity&quot; operates (amazingly, there appears to be no Wikipedia article on this topic - someone get on that! - but you can check out [http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/11/lawrence-lessig/continuing-the-work-of-code/ this Lessig article] and scroll down to the second block quote). By this, I mean that if 99% of all users use Baidu or Google.cn without checking Google.com, isn't that more than enough control for the whole censorship project to accomplish its goal? Isn't &quot;good enough&quot; censorship really all the government is looking for? Those who believe in the strong operation of this principle might be highly skeptical of &quot;work-around&quot; solutions, even if they seem really easy to people like us. Here's Lessig in ''Code'' (quoted in that Cato link): &quot;I think it is as likely that the majority of people would resist these small but efficient regulators of the Net as it is that cows would resist wire fences. This is who we are, and this is why these regulations work.&quot;<br /> <br /> Juan: I agree. Google.com is indeed accessible in China via the home page of Google.cn. However, the question is how many people have knowledge of this small icon and really choose to click it to see the difference. Especially Google China does not promote Google.com in its marketing event, part of because Google China is a separate entity and its main task is to drive the traffic of Google.cn instead of Google.com. Also, one of the reason why Google.com is accessible in China is Chinese government have not noticed it. If there is enough awareness among Chinese people, government will know it too and I doubt if this service will be available then. In fact, during the anniversary of Tiananmen Square protest, Google.com is not accessible to Chinese people for several day. <br /> <br /> Also interesting is the distinction between the two types of countries that may want to filter online content. The first type, like Saudi Arabia, can filter content as it comes into the country because its network topology is small and simple enough that each incoming server can be configured to support the government-ordered censorship. The second type, like China, has too large of a network to rely on an approach that is working in Saudi Arabia and must rely more heavily on the content servers/providers doing the filtering themselves. Are there steps, such as encrypting URLs to make keyword filtering more difficult, that could make filtering more difficult in either of the types of countries?<br /> <br /> Reuben: I think a good point to remember for this class is that there are approaches to solving problems other than law, be it a technical solution, an incentives based solution, or other. JZ is right that lawyers and law students can fall into the trap of just saying &quot;There oughtta be a law!&quot; and minimizing the difficulty of actually getting a law passed.</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Day_2_Predictions&diff=255 2010-01-05T19:28:33Z

<p>Juanc: </p> <hr /> <div>= Mark =<br /> <br /> Sheel: Cisco, with its involvement in China's Golden Shield Project and $16 Billion investment (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2825.html), doesn't want to have to deal with issues of human rights that might diminish ROI. Notable quote from article and 2008 testimony: Chandler said, &quot;Cisco does not customize, or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities, in order to enable different regimes to block access to information.&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't willing to make any sacrifice.<br /> : Elisabeth: we might push back on the idea that this would be a poor business decision, and solicit Cosson and Hope'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.<br /> :: Andrew: I doubt Chandler would be cynical (frank?) enough to respond this way, but Cisco may be shielded from the kind of &quot;PR risks&quot; that Yahoo/Google/Microsoft face, since their products and services reside below the content layer and are less intuitively understandable to the general public. Along these lines, I hope to hear some discussion about the sources of contention between stakeholders at different architectural layers. How do differences in the type of actions governments request from these companies translate to materially different policy preferences, given the extreme broadness of the principles at issue? <br /> :: Hector: I agree with Andrew and wonder whether Cisco will go to lengths to emphasize the hardware-side of its products/services. This may be a more palatable version of JZ's &quot;gun's don't kill people&quot; framing: &quot;Look, we provide hardware and the software interfaces that are infinitely customizable.&quot; Such an argument works only to the extent that the products/services are general-use (generative?) and the extent that CISCO is '''truly''' removed from any immoral end-use.<br /> : Jason: I doubt that he will emphasize ROI and the need to make money to a group like ours - or, at least he won't explicitly mention his company's desire to make billions of dollars. Instead, I suspect that Mark will emphasize the need for more Internet infrastructure in developing countries, and the uncertain effect of the GNI in terms of continuing to do business everywhere. He would be right about that need - see, for instance, the Internet density map [http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/InternetMap/medium/worlddotblack.jpg here]. So he can ask us rhetorically, &quot;What is Cisco supposed to do? Don't you cyberlaw students want people in China and Southeast Asia and the Middle East and Africa to get online, too? If so, those countries need our hardware - and we can't choose who runs their governments!&quot; And you know what? If he says this, he will have a very, very good point.<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;different regimes&quot; to control their nationals' 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 &quot;do some evil&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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Lien: The GNI principles are so general and an &quot;implementation / repetition&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's advocate, does joining the GNI change anything in reality or is it just a good thing to join because of the company'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 this kind of approach. The GNI might be a good starting point for a company to obey to certain principles. However, the privacy principles are so broadly written that, if a company would follow these principles, it would still not comply with European Privacy legislation. Why would an European company then join the initiative and do all the effort (e.g. audit, ...), knowing that it would still not comply with European legislation?<br /> : Elisabeth: I also wonder how true it is that these are &quot;international&quot; standards, rather than American or American/European standards.<br /> <br /> = Dunstan =<br /> Tyler: I believe Dunstan will try and draw a distinction between situations involving two types of countries. The first type is countries with laws in accordance with GNI principles but that are not enforced or poorly enforced. The second type is countries with laws that on their face are violative of GNI principles. I hope Dunstan will discuss strategies that corporations should use for situations that arise involving both types of countries and the different approaches that GNI stakeholders can collectively take to preemptively forestall problems in each of the two types of countries.<br /> : Daniel: It would be great if we further explored the (blurring) division between these two country-types. Was Google's first move in the negotiation with Turkey - accepting to block videos insulting Atatürk, but only within the country's limits - OK under the GNI principles? How much can a country legitimately curb freedom of speech, according to the GNI framework? IMO, its diplomatic language allows for an &quot;American&quot; interpretation, but also for an &quot;European&quot; one and perhaps others even more restrictive.<br /> <br /> = Chuck =<br /> <br /> Tyler: I expect Chuck to express frustration that more corporations have not signed up for GNI and identify some specific reasons why he thinks GNI has so far been unable to recruit any additional corporations from the initial roster of three (Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft). I also hope that Chuck discusses what preparations Microsoft has made to allow GNI auditors access the sensitive Microsoft information.<br /> <br /> <br /> Juan: As a stakeholders unite, GNI is supposed to have more flexibility and accommodation than its legislative alternatives, such as GOFA. With this flexibility, how will it attract new members in China, such as Baidu (www.baidu.com, the market leader of search services), Kaixin network (www.kaixin001.com, the most popular social network website in China, which is a knockoff of facebook), Tudou (www.tudou.com, the biggest video site mainly serving local videos) and etc. Facing with a very powerful government, I doubt they will have an incentive to join the GNI. <br /> Another question is what is the role of GNI? If company challenges the government request, government would not buy it, what actions would company be supposed to take? Will GNI interface with government? By challenging the government request, the company may be punished by government, either directly or indirectly. Is there any benefit for the company to take the risk? <br /> Will GNI works for China? Can it enlighten Chinese government to change its position on human rights and free expression? <br /> Should GNI have multiple standards on human rights protection in different countries, since different countries have different views on human rights.</div>

Juanc https://cyber.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/?title=Experiences_in_Crowd_Sourcing&diff=180 2010-01-02T20:07:14Z

<p>Juanc: /* Mechanical Turk */</p> <hr /> <div>== Mechanical Turk ==<br /> <br /> === Daniel Arbix ===<br /> <br /> 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 – against the website’s Participation Terms –, 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 “turks” to show support to social-networking profiles or events, and even to write posts in blogs making compliments to the blog owner’s clever analyses. A short summary of my experiences follows.<br /> <br /> ''1st try'': bad page design, no $<br /> 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 “a test for page load time, very easy, for USD 2.00”).<br /> <br /> ''2nd try'': the second HIT I tried had the following misleading instructions:<br /> * &quot;This HIT is an easy to complete 'sign up' assignment. It shouldn'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;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&quot;<br /> The site redirected me to http://www.offersclick.co.uk/offers/SiteRender.aspx?SiteID=501&amp;ThemeID=21&amp;q14259=AFW&amp;q26274=93282 Again, it seems like arbitrage of internet advertisement revenues…<br /> It was impossible to complete the task within the assigned time – the form-filling advertisements website took too much to load –, so I returned the HIT (and received no $, in spite of losing a lot of time)<br /> <br /> ''3rd try'': the HIT had the following description:<br /> * &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't use disposable e-mails as well. Let'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 &quot;get quotes&quot; 3) Complete the form and click on &quot;get free dealer quotes&quot; REQUIRED PROOF: On activation confirmation copy/paste or type full text to the box below starting with : &quot;Sent!...&quot; &quot;<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ''4th try'': the HIT had the following description:<br /> * &quot;Data Collection-Google Results Reward: $1.25 per HIT Insert address, perform google searches and indicate first result&quot;<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> ''5th try'': the HIT had the following description:<br /> * &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'll find a code. To get paid, please enter the code below:&quot;<br /> 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 politicians…<br /> <br /> === Jason Harrow ===<br /> <br /> It all started out so promisingly. Before I even started, I was excited because &quot;Mechanical Turk&quot; is such a great name. What did it mean? What was mechanical about it? And who or what is the “Turk” in the transaction? Then, in the back of my mind: isn’t that somehow vaguely racist?<br /> <br /> 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 “machine” that, “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.” 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 &quot;Mechanical Turk&quot; and consult him or her. I couldn’t have been more excited to get started.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> The next one took longer and bore no fruit, though: the little Midwestern barbershop college that was assigned to me didn’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 – Aaron Smyth, whoever that is – 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 wasn’t really worth it beyond the initial thrill of it all.<br /> <br /> Like Daniel, I then encountered what later became obvious as a scam: someone who said they’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 – one of my favorite companies on the planet, by the way – let them get away with this? I reported the bastards, but I don’t know what happened to that complaint. A few days later, Mechanical Turk still seems littered with these scams. That’s disappointing.<br /> <br /> 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 wouldn’t be getting the shiny nickel I was promised. Hey Amazon: how is that allowed?<br /> <br /> I was once so excited by the great name and the prospect of making easy money, but I'm now deeply disappointed with both the requesters and with Amazon. Why did all the posters seem so scammy? Why aren'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!<br /> <br /> 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 hadn’t been destroyed in 1854. That Mechanical Turk might have been a sight to see. This one isn’t.<br /> <br /> === Lien Ceulemans ===<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> A Google search brought me to the Amazon mechanical turk website (https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome). <br /> <br /> Before starting, I first had to create a payment account and accept the 6 pages long “Amazon Mechanical Turk Participation Agreement”, thereby exclusively granting my intellectual property rights to the “Requester”. Furthermore, this agreement informed me that, as a mechanical turk, I would perform a “work for hire” “and would “not be entitled […] to any vacation pay, sick leave, insurance programs, including group health insurance or retirement benefits; or […] worker's compensation benefits in the event of injury.” <br /> <br /> Amazon describes its platform as “a marketplace for work that requires human intelligence” There is indeed no sign of a worldwide crisis, as 306,354 “Human Intelligence Tasks” or “HIT’s” were available. <br /> <br /> I started with an easy, quite boring assignment that would pay me 0.05 dollar for each correct hit: “Find the Website Address for a Restaurant and its Menu”. Since at that time, my “value” was still rated at 100, I met the qualification requirement. While the website of “Merlo La Trattoria” in Chicago is quite easy to find, I ran into difficulties after a few hits. The address of the “Brazil steak” house was only indicated in Chinese characters in the assignment, so I got completely lost at Google. It was time for another challenge…<br /> <br /> For my next HIT, I had to “write a short answer about cars” 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 “How do I clean a mass air flow sensor on my Mercury?” as follows: “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.” Although the HIT explanation mentioned that no qualification was required, after performing the hit, my answer was “submitted to conjecture corporation and [would] be approved or rejected shortly.” A few hours later, I received a “Qualification Request Rejection Notification” email ‏for Amazon Mechanical Turk. Despite I failed the test question, I did receive the 0.03 dollar reward for participating in this HIT. <br /> <br /> 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 “Difficult Problems in Cyberlaw” students - is willing to be a mechanical turk. <br /> <br /> Although I got very bored, I tried to perform another HIT that required me to find the date, parties and subject of so-called “top secret letters of the US war department”. While this sounds as a very exciting and interesting assignment, in reality, trying to analyze unreadable pdf’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 ‘Informed Consent for Social Application Decision Making”, 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. <br /> <br /> Today (i.e. 5 days after submitted more than 20 hits), my Amazon Payment Account indicates that the approval of my submitted HIT’s is still pending. This means that so far, I only earned 0.03 dollars for 2 hours of labor.<br /> <br /> === Juan Cheng ===<br /> <br /> 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 “this job is only for [a person's name]. Anyone else will be rejected”. This is so weird. Why the requester just ask the person he designate to finish the job offline? <br /> <br /> 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'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've sent a email to the requester to check. Will follow up. <br /> <br /> 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'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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> == LiveOps ==<br /> <br /> === Sheel Tyle ===<br /> <br /> I am in the process of signing up as an inexperienced bilingual (Spanish &amp; English - I'm conversational, not fluent, in Spanish, but let's see how much I'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.<br /> <br /> There are five steps that I must follow in order to be 'submitted for review': <br /> <br /> Validate your email address<br /> <br /> Verify your understanding of the general requirements<br /> <br /> Provide basic information on your background<br /> <br /> Assess your comprehension and computer skill<br /> <br /> Audition your voice <br /> <br /> Under ''''basic information'''', here are some of the questions: <br /> <br /> 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?<br /> <br /> I said &quot;No&quot; to every one except &quot;Yes&quot; to speaking Spanish. <br /> <br /> Then, under ''''comprehension and computer skill'''', I had to answer questions like: <br /> <br /> ''<br /> Please read this script:&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?&quot;<br /> <br /> In this script, is the customer choosing between two different products or are they deciding whether to add a product (for two products total)?<br /> Deciding whether to add a product<br /> Choosing between two different products'' <br /> <br /> '' What is the keyboard shortcut to move between windows you already have open on your computer?<br /> Hold down the &quot;Alt&quot; button and press the &quot;Tab&quot; button<br /> Drag the window offscreen<br /> Click the appropriate button in the task bar<br /> Close the program you are currently working in, and open a new one<br /> Minimize the window you are currently working in ''<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Submitted. Once I hear back, I'll update whether I was accepted =)<br /> <br /> === Ramesh Nagarajan ===<br /> <br /> I'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'll share two observations I had about the process. <br /> <br /> First, there'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: &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.&quot; They aren't currently accepting Massachusetts residents as LiveOps contractors -- perhaps Massachusetts's laws are too worker-friendly -- so I hope that means I get to avoid the &quot;criminal and credit background check.&quot; Also, I didn'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 &quot;home business[es] to contract&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's business strategy.<br /> <br /> On a lighter note, the questions for &quot;comprehension and computer skill&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's a good chance I got one of the questions wrong. It asked what a customer paid today for a product that had &quot;an upfront trial payment&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.</div>

Juanc