Syllabus: Difference between revisions

From The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(174 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ==
In the order per the schedule on the first day of seminar (the schedule lives [[Scheduling|here]]):
* Alternative compensation and consumption models (Terry Fisher/Noank, anystreet, imeem, hulu, tip jars, the MPAA deal, girl talk; Gray Tuesday/downhill battle)
* RIAA case against individual file sharers as a strategic move
* Comparative/int’l angles
 
==== Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music and other Performance Art====
 
'''Presenters:''' ''Joe Fishman, Miriam Weiler'' (perhaps there is some possibility of collaboration with those working on the Tenenbaum suit?)
 
===== Alternatives to iTunes for Access to Copyrighted Works =====
 
We are beginning to see more and more choices for where and how to get copyrighted music.  Gone are the days when it was either download illegally on programs such as Limewire or pay for them on iTunes.  There have been attempts at creating new marketplaces from scratch such as at [http://amiestreet.com Aimee Street], which lowers the cost of discovering new music by setting price according to download popularity. Then there has been [http://grooveshark.com Grooveshark], which charges for downloads from its user-uploaded library but actually gives a cut to the original uploader.  And then we find the advertisement-driven revenue model creeping in, such as at [http://www.imeem.com Imeem], the third-most popular social networking site on the Internet as of August (behind only facebook and MySpace).
 
It's clear that the days of CD browsing at Tower Records are behind us.  And while iTunes has been the one primarily filling the vacuum, the proliferation of web-based alternatives is making things interesting.  Are any of these models likely to succeed?  Are our methods of music consumption likely to have an impact on our methods of music production? And just where does the recording industry fit in to all of it?
 
:Maybe John Buckman, from Magnatune?
 
:Not sure how to integrate Fan Culture & Vidding into a broader discussion of changing consumption patterns of music?
 
 
== Old Laws/New Media ==
Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez (as noted above, collaboration with the "Changing Trends..." group? Are these separate topics warranting their own respective days? 
 
 
How has new media affected traditional communications and media industries and challenged traditional law?  How do we deal with the fact that there is little legal infrastructure that takes into account today's new media environments?  Do we apply old laws to new technologies, or do we create new regulations?  How can we create sound policy that aligns with both traditional legal and moral aspirations while according with today's technological realities?
 
This topic will aim to explore these general questions through the specific example of Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, a federal file-sharing case the three of us are working on with Professor Charles Nesson, co-founder of the Berkman Center.
 
Speaker Ideas: Google Telecom Lawyer Rick Whitt or Google Antitrust lawyer Dana Wagner.
 
== The Internet and Publication ==
'''Presenters:  [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''
 
The internet has completely changed the meaning of publication, and the relationship between print and digital media is continually evolving.  The advent of the personal computer and the internet have changed the way information is assembled, distributed, managed, and digested in ways at least as dramatic and consequential as the advent of the printing press.  How are traditional publishers coping with these changes?  What new forms of publishing are made possible by the internet, and what challenges do they entail? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:34, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 
=== The Publication Process ===
 
==== Open Access Publishing ====
 
Addressing whether there actually seems to be a movement toward this model, and away from traditional science/tech publishing.  What effects movement toward this model might have on quality, oversight, etc. of published articles.  Also, discussion of business models/funding, problems with open access models, etc.  And any copyright issues (to tie things back to law).
 
This can relate both to open access of full articles (as with [http://www.plos.org/ PLoS]) or single experiments/results (including [http://sciencecommons.org/ Science Commons] and like projects to both make the data available, and, perhaps more importantly, the technologies to make it available in usable form)
 
Would "open review" (instead of "peer review") work? Are there any models around? What about a Slashdot-style system of moderation and meta-moderation?
 
Yes, there is at least one example that I can think of.  Lawrence Lessig published the first edition of his book Code in 1999.  It came out in paper and ink.  Several years later, in order to "translate" (his word) the book into a second edition, Lessig persuaded the publisher (Basic Books) to allow him to post the entire text of the first edition of the book on a wiki hosted by Jotspot.  (The Wiki text was licensed under a Creative Commons  Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.)  Lessig explains, "a team of 'chapter captains' helped facilitate a conversation about the text.  There were some edits to the text itself, and many more valuable comments and criticisms.  I then took that text as of the end of 2005 and added my own edits to produce this book." (Preface to ''Code version 2.0'', x.)  ''Code version 2.0'' is the result of this collaborative editing process.  It is available for purchase in paper and ink, for free as a [http://pdf.codev2.cc/Lessig-Codev2.pdf PDF download], and also on a [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi wiki] hosted by Socialtext. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 
==== Collaborative and Customized Textbooks ====
 
Maybe also Harvard's new open access policy for academic work?
(note that the Harvard Free Culture group is working on the matter - see [http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Campaign The Weeler Declaration])
 
JZ described an innovative publication option with which Foundation Press seems willing to experiment:  essentially, individual chapters are available independently from one another, giving instructors the freedom to custom build a text book that contains exactly their desired materials (no more, and no less), in the desired sequence.  Assuming this model is technologically, legally, and financially feasible, what benefits and drawbacks does it entail?  Possible risks might include a lack of completeness and/or organization in the materials ultimately acquired by students as well as the possibility that pedagogical emphasis is dictated by sociologically driven group trends rather than deliberately thoughtful decision making.  --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 15:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 
==== Self Publication ====
 
One of the biggest and most obvious changes wrought by the advent of the internet and PCs the ability of individuals to self-publish; it is now cheap, quick, and easy to reach a mass audience with one's own text, images, and sounds.  The rise of blogging, Youtube, and other developments have further increased the ease of self-publication.  I know that several scholars have studied the rise and impact of self publication opportunities, but I'm not sure what conclusions they've drawn or which of them might be interesting to bring in as a guest.  Suggestions? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:09, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 
=== The Relationship Between Print and Digital Media ===
 
==== Google Book Search ====
 
What does the [http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/articles/settlement-resources.html recent settlement] between Google and the Authors Guild/American Association of Publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean?  Many have hailed it for both improving access to knowledge by creating [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html?em "the long dreamed of universal library"] and for avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law.  But there may also be troubling aspects of having access to such a large and unique collection of content controlled by a single for-profit company (the agreement is non-exclusive to Google, but it may be  difficult for a legitimate competitor to emerge, given Google's sizable first mover advantage). 
 
Is this settlement optimal for all interested groups?  Presumably it is for Google and the Authors Guild/AAP, but what about externalities for non-parties, such as the reading public?  Is some sort of government intervention appropriate to ensure access to this "universal library"?  What difference does it make, if any, that this "universal library" is operated by a private company reliant on many [http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html public university libraries?]
 
==== The Shifting Role of Publishing Companies ====
 
As noted above under "Self Publication," the internet makes it very easy for individuals to make their work widely available.  However, actually garnering a sizable audience or realizing a profit from one's work remains a greater challenge; it appears to be with respect to this step that the services of traditional publishers appear to retain some value.  After all, publishing companies offer marketing channels and name recognition in addition to simply machines that print a books.  Are traditional publishing companies threatened by the new forms of publishing that the internet makes possible?  Are publishers better off battling the internet (for example, by emphasizing the superiority and reliability of their traditional services) or embracing it (for example, by offering digital and internet-based publication services)? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:16, 1 December 2008 (EST)  Should the latter services and items -- such as ebooks, audiobooks in mp3 format, and Amazon Kindle -- be replacements for or compliments to printed books?  --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 07:32, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 
==== The Fate of Printed Materials ====
 
Will the internet cause the use of printed materials to decline to the point that printed materials become obsolete?  Obsolescence is reality in my own experience with The ''Harvard Journal of Law and Technology'' (''JOLT''). ''JOLT'' publishes its articles online on its [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ website], and it also publishes shorter and more timely posts online in its companion, the [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ JOLT Digest].  In addition to being available directly to any internet user, all ''JOLT'' articles are made available through legal research databases, including Westlaw and Lexis.  Each semester, we order from our publisher (Hein) enormous boxes of the new issue in print, but we have no idea what to do with them.  Even after giving away copies to our parents, there are still stacks and stacks of unwanted and unneeded paper copies, and a lighthearted dialogue about what to do with them has steadily taken over the dry erase board in our office.  These printed copies of our journal are literally useless. --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:32, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 
The way that readers encounter and digest information is vastly different in the context of printed materials and in the context of digital and online materials.  These differences have consequences for both academic researchers and regular citizens in terms of both the kind of information an individual is exposed to and the way that the individual approaches those sources.  If a dramatic shift away from printed media is happening, what other shifts does that entail for the way that people learn, synthesize, and evaluate information? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 16:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 
We talked about an [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google interesting article] relating to the topic of how digital media and the internet are affecting the way in which people read in JZ's 1L reading group.  The article relates more to how the presentation of written material on the 'net (short and skimmable, links galore, etc.) is affecting the way we process information and our ability to read "long" pieces (ie. more than a page or so) without becoming distracted.  It is a bit tangential to the specific discussion of the movement of print media onto digital form (since it mostly discusses the ''differences'' between the format of media in each of the forms), but is interesting regardless. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 08:55, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 
==== Distribution Channels ====
 
How is the internet changing the way printed materials are distributed?  [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] appears to be taking over the role of brick-and-mortar bookstores by offering a cheaper and more convenient way to purchase new printed books; their "look inside" feature makes the online shopping experience even more similar to being in a live bookstore.  Similarly, [http://www.abebooks.com Abebooks.com] and similar websites have made it possible for individuals to locate and purchase used, out-of-print, and rare books from one another without requiring the research services of specialized booksellers.  Even if hard copy printed materials remain in demand, might bookstores become obsolete? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)
 
=== Possible Guests ===
* Google book digitization people and/or members of the authors guild
* Amazon Kindle people
* People from publishing companies doing offering innovative services, products, or editing processes involving the internet. (Does anybody know of such companies?)
* Someone who has studied self publication on the internet (names?)
* Someone who has studied reading habits in conjunction with the shift away from printed media (names?)
* Lessig? (he is probably more useful for a different topic)


== Free and Open Source Software ==
== Free and Open Source Software ==
'''Presenters:  [[dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''
[[Free and Open Source Software]]
 
* How can a dispersed, multilingual collection of coders working for free assemble something as complicated as a web browser, let alone an entire operating system? Open-source projects are famously free-wheeling, but different organizational models and tools have sprung up to solve these obstacles.
 
What are the forces that drive hackers to contribute to open source projects? What, if anything, can we learn from applying theories of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy gift economies] to open source projects? Should we read Lewis Hyde's [http://southerncrossreview.org/4/schwartz.html The Gift]? (n.b. i may be motivated by my own desire to read the book -- [[dulles]])
 
* Eric Raymond/OSI ?
* PJ/Groklaw
* Strategies and indemnities (e.g. SCO v. IBM)
* Questioning the foundations of the free software movement (i.e. the "four freedoms")[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#cite_ref-bull6_3-0] -- how much does access to the source code really matter anymore?  Are there alternative theories (e.g. "generativity") that better capture the values at stake? Affero License? (Eben Moglen?)
* The organization/groups/cooperation questions: how do free software projects organize and govern themselves, and what broader lessons might be learned from it?  (e.g. debian, IETF)
 
(This marks my initial claim to the topic, though I would be overjoyed to work with others - [[dulles]])
 
== Philanthropy/Causes/Cooperation via the Internet ==
'''Presenters:'''  '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] Whoever is interested!
 
When does it work, when does it not? and why?
 
Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes
 
People:
* Prof. Yochai Benkler
* Tom Steinberg
 
Of course there are a lot of custom-built tools for mobilizing people online to get things done in the real world. On the other hand, what about more general tools? We've all been invited, via Facebook, to join groups and attend events (the Obama campaign certainly made good use of this); is there a generalizable model here?
 
Facebook groups dedicated to particular causes remind me of the online petitions that began circulating widely via email about ten years ago:  their effectiveness in accomplishing real world change--and even their visibility to individuals capable of affecting the desired changes--are dubious.  Is the real purpose of these movements simply to make participants ''feel'' like they are being active and involved?  What percentage of those who signed email petitions in the 1990s were aware that their signatures were unverifiable and that the widely-distributed emails were unlikely to be collated and submitted to an official authority?  What expectations do participants in facebook group causes have for their involvement and its consequences?  The facebook group causes are certainly more centralized and visible than the old email petitions, and they provide a better tool for identifying and communicating with supporters in order to mobilize them in an organized fashion.  How often is such mobilization attempted, and with what degree of success?  As a tool of online activism, is facebook a step forward from chain emails, is it a step in a different direction, or does it just serve the same old functions but in newer packaging?  --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 08:26, 29 November 2008 (EST)


Maybe we can invite some of the leaders of the various social networking sites or Jascha Franklin-Hodge, who was an architect of the Obama campaign's use of social technology.
'''Topic Owners:  [[User:dulles|dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''
 
Might also be worth considering SMS applications that interface with the internet in this context especially since cell phones will presumably be the nexus of tech activism in the developing world. See FrontlineSMS or Ushahidi, a web crisis mapping project that let any user with a cell phone text in reports of violence in post-election Kenya as a way to geographically report real-time citizen reporting. (ELANA)


== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==
== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==
'''Presenters:'''  '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''
[[The Internet and Societal Inequity]]


=== Socio-technical Gap ===
'''Topic Owners:'''  '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''


Problems encountered in the act of discoursing itself are sometimes addressed via social means, technological means, or both. It has been suggested that technological tools should support social processes, but there is an adaptation of each realm to the other - how does this back-and-forth take place in the design of a successful technology-enabled discussion?
== Old Laws/New Media ==


Which inequalities are created or strengthened due the increasing reliance on technology and the differences in the ability to access the Internet(e.g. global and socio-economic differences)? Does the net actually re-distribute and decentralize power and influence, or does it also reinforce the existing political and economic hierarchies? In short - is the Internet really a good thing for everybody?
[[Old Laws/New Media]]


*A solutions-focused question here might be: what tools might encourage a more egalitarian internet, both nationally and internationally? How can online applications be designed to encourage social equality? (Berkman Fellow [http://eszter.com Eszter Hargittai] has worked on some related questions, focusing on research about how people actually use the internet.) --[[User:G|G]] 12:12, 28 November 2008 (EST)
'''Topic Owners: [[User:DebbieRosenbaum|Debbie Rosenbaum]], [[User:MSanchez|Matt Sanchez]]'''


=== One Laptop Per Child ===
== All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org ==
[[All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org]]


Happy to help this group with info as I can. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]]
'''Topic Owners:'''  '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''


=== Environmental Concerns ===
== The Future of News ==
[[The Future of News]]


To what extent is the hardware upon which the Internet exists damaging the environment?  Where does old tech go when it dies?  What distributive impact does the "recycling" of old tech have.  Was the Internet build with principles of physical sustainbility in mind?  Is it too late to change?  How do individual companies, like Google, view their own practices?  Does the cost of a server internalize the cost of disposal?  Why has it been cheaper to just keep throwing on new machines?  What of the electricity necessary to run these machines?  What does it say about society that we are so willing to pollute our own communities to create a second life?  Has technological innovation and advancement dislocated the true impact of non-zero cost transactions?  --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:36, 29 November 2008 (EST)
Topic owners: [[User:Drood]], [[User:jf]]


== Prediction Markets ==
== The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ==
'''Presenters:'''  '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''
[[The Future of Copyright and Entertainment]]


Intrade, etc.
''Topic owners:'' ''[[User:Jfishman|Joe]], [[User:Miriam|Miriam]]''


[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeSports Tradesports] announced last week that it will [http://www.tradesports.com/ cease operations] at the end of this month.  Does fallout from the current economic crisis include regulatory changes that spell doom for online prediction markets?  Or is something else going on here? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 11:05, 26 November 2008 (EST)
== The Google Book Search Settlement ==
[[The Google Book Search Settlement]]


Could prediction markets transform how we govern ourselves? Robin Hanson proposes [http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf Futarchy].  The idea in brief:
'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''
 
"Democracies often fail to aggregate information, while speculative markets excel at this task. We consider a new form of governance, wherein voters would say what we want, but speculators would say how to get it. Elected representatives would oversee the after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare. Those who recommend policies that regressions suggest will raise GDP should be willing to endorse similar market advice."
 
* Michael Abramowitz (sp?), book on prediction markets
* Justin Wolfers
* Bo Cowgill, Hal Varian: Google prediction markets


== Anonymity and privacy ==
== Anonymity and privacy ==
''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''
[[Anonymity and privacy]]


* Facebook + google people?
'''Topic Owners: [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''', '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''', '''[[User:Jgruensp|Joshua]]'''
* another way to look at it is as a matter of cybercrime and such - new surveillence methods (also relevant in regards to child pornography, for example). i wander if these are too different topics or not. '''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''
* I'd like to see a segment on what "privacy" actually means in law and in culture. This would probably attach well to any other, more applied segment.  [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 16:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)


== The Future of News ==
== Internet + Industry + Investing ==


'''Presenters:''' ''Dharmishta Rood, Jon Fildes''
Topic owners: Andrew Klaber and DAL
[[Internet, Industry, and Investing]]


The traditional media industry is in turmoil. Circulation of newspapers is [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/business/media/28circ.html?_r=1 falling]. Staff are being laid off, costs are being cut and foreign bureaus are being shut. Audiences are fragmenting, advertising spending is plummeting and the valuations of companies is [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21times.html?ref=business dropping]. TV and radio are experiencing similar problems. Some [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30dowd.html?hp papers] are even outsourcing local news reporting to India!
== Internet Governance and Regulation ==
[[Internet Governance and Regulation]]


Most of these changes have been blamed on the arrival of the web, which has changed how information is produced and consumed. Now, anyone can be a news gatherer, publisher and distributor. The balance of power has changed.
'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''


Yet at the same time, the web offers these organisations a huge opportunity. Already, groups such as [http://spot.us/ spot.us] and [http://www.propublica.org/ Pro Publica] are experimenting with new business models. Others, such as the Christian Science Monitor, [http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1029/p25s01-usgn.html have ditched] the old way of doing things and have gone entirely online. Many are using the web to reach out to audiences and connect with them in new ways.
== Prediction Markets ==
 
[[Prediction Markets]]
But, are they doing enough? Will experiments like this be enough to save news organisations? Does it matter if they disappear? Should governments intervene to save them in the same way as they have decided to prop up the ailing car manufacturing industry? Is this an appropriate intervention? Should it be left to market forces? What values are at stake beyond what the markets appear to be able to sustain? Ultimately, what is the future for “old media”?
 
Possible contributors:
 
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gillmor Dan Gilmour]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jarvis Jeff Jarvis]
* someone from the NYT?
* someone from the [http://civic.mit.edu/ MIT Center for Future Civic Media]?
 
The Communication Initiative is an organization in this domain with a compelling problem that they'd like advice on solving, and they're very enthusiastic and willing to work with the class. They're focused on the use and support of communication for economic and social development (http://www.comminit.com) with a large and varied network (over 70,000 total) of members all over the world. Their question: given the challenges the face (enumerated more in the details section), how do we guide and engage our network more through our interactive online processes instead of through email?" More information available at [[The Communication Initiative]] (they wrote up a problem statement for us!) - is this something people would be interested in taking on? I would be... [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 21:21, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 
== Internet/network Security ==
 
'''[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]''' (fun topics, all: we could invite [http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_progj/task,view/id,1117/ the CSIS commission] which has been grappling with all these issues and is desperate for legal guidance)
 
=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===
 
'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''
 
We have come to rely on the Internet for almost every aspect of our lives.  If the Internet somehow suddenly went "down" (through either a cyberattack or physical attack on key backbone pieces of infrastructure), the result would likely be calamity, as well as hordes of people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves.  Can we even imagine what the world would look like the morning after such an attack if it was successful?  Are we wrong to rely so heavily on a single tool whose detailed technical inner workings so few people truly understand?  Are we setting ourselves up to be ruined when someone compromises this tool?  What about the tradeoffs between keeping the Net free+open vs. regulation to ensure that it retains its functional integrity in the face of attack? 
 
We can invite Dan Kaminsky, who recently discovered a flaw in the inner-workings of the Net that could have caused some serious damage.  See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/technology/09flaw.html?hp
(or we could invite will smith, who defeated the aliens in independence day with the help of cyber-attack).
 
* I vote Will Smith.  Unless everyone wants to get into the desirability of a DNS nonce of sufficient bitlength, in which case... no, still Will Smith.  That guy's an elliptic curve cryptography fiend.  However, if we do want to talk about design issues in the internet, and the failure of the marketplace to handle externalities created by poor software design, leading to the perpetual crisis of bugginess, we could do worse than to invite [http://cr.yp.to/djb.html Daniel Bernstein].  Plus, as an added bonus, he saw the issues that gave rise to the Kaminsky bug coming down the pike [http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html a long] [http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/forgery.html time ago]. --[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]
 
=== Internet as International Conflict Zone ===
 
'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''
 
In light of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_on_Estonia_2007 recent events in Estonia], have we finally reached the long-predicted era of cyberwarfare?  Is cyber-espionage a counterintelligence problem or something more?  ([http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20080531_6948.php This article from the National Journal] talks bluntly about perceived threats, although is perhaps a little too willing to attribute causation of certain events to Chinese actors on dubious evidence)
 
=== Internet as an Extension of National Infrastructure ===
 
'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''
 
It is easy to define the borders of the nation in realspace (ports, airports, land crossings), and the tradeoffs between private propertyholders' rights and national security interests (making those tradeoffs? Not always so easy).  But what are the national borders in cyberspace?  Given the dangers described in the two topics above, what kind of role, if any, should national government play in monitoring and regulating major backbone communications links?  What about the networks of semi-public industries such as utilities?  Private corporations that store government secrets?  Financial systems?  Other types of privately owned networks?
 
--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 23:54, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 
== Rights of Minors ==
 
presenters: '''[[User:Bepa|Vera]] (maybe)'''


Minors have long been recognized to not have free speech rights that are co-extensive with adults. But with the Internet, how do we define those rights?  And what, if any, regulation should the government enact to protect minors on the Internet, while also respecting their rights?
'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''


There are two traditional categories where minors' free speech rights have been restricted.  The first is with respect to pornography, the second with respect to the school environment.  These two areas raise different concerns.
== The Tools Team ==
[[The Tools Team]]


== Internet + Environment + Venture Capital ==
'''Topic Owners:''' [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]]
* Peter Thiel, John Doerr, Google people
* Presenters: Andrew Klaber and DAL

Latest revision as of 15:46, 1 June 2009

In the order per the schedule on the first day of seminar (the schedule lives here):

Free and Open Source Software

Free and Open Source Software

Topic Owners: dulles,Ayelet

The Internet and Societal Inequity

The Internet and Societal Inequity

Topic Owners: Mark, Graham

Old Laws/New Media

Old Laws/New Media

Topic Owners: Debbie Rosenbaum, Matt Sanchez

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

Topic Owners: Rainer + Elana + Mchua

The Future of News

The Future of News

Topic owners: User:Drood, User:jf

The Future of Copyright and Entertainment

The Future of Copyright and Entertainment

Topic owners: Joe, Miriam

The Google Book Search Settlement

The Google Book Search Settlement

Topic Owners: Gwen, Lee, Jon

Anonymity and privacy

Anonymity and privacy

Topic Owners: Dan Ray, Conor, Joshua

Internet + Industry + Investing

Topic owners: Andrew Klaber and DAL Internet, Industry, and Investing

Internet Governance and Regulation

Internet Governance and Regulation

Topic owners: Vera, Arjun

Prediction Markets

Prediction Markets

Topic Owners: Matthew, Elisabeth

The Tools Team

The Tools Team

Topic Owners: Jason + Michelle

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Syllabus&oldid=3307"