= Topic Guidance =

* Are you excited about it?
* Does it relate to law (not entirely necessary)
* Does it relate to tech (not entirely necessary)
** To be sure, these are rebuttable presumptions :)

Q: Are there any circumstances in which we can do a team of three?
A: Yes! If I'm doing the math right, there are 12 seminar slots next term, of which we'll be using 11. There are 26 people. So with 2 per session that leaves 4 floaters; there can be 4 of the 11 sessions with 3 instead of 2. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 17:30, 27 November 2008 (EST)

* Wish list of dream people
** Michael Geist
** Eric Schmidt/Larry Page/Sergey Brin

= Officially Proposed Topics =

== Topics put forward today (please merge as appropriate with ones below or vice versa) ==

=== Strategic issues in free + open source software ===
* Eric Raymond, Siobhan O’Mahoney ?

=== Open university ===
* Nesson, Shieber, Wheeler Declaration People

=== Lessig ===
* Remix

=== The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ===
* 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 ====
'''Presenters:''' Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

This topic concerns the tension that occurs when we attempt to apply old laws to new media and communications technologies (including the Internet). Central questions include:

*Should new media be treated like one of the traditional media (print, broadcasting, or common carriers), a hybrid, or something entirely new?
*How have the courts, Congress, and other lawmaking bodies responded to new media technologies?
*What regulatory regime is emerging, if any, to govern new media?
*How do we deal with the fact that there is little legal infrastructure that takes into account today's new media and technological 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 two specific examples. The first is the case 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. Note that this topic will examine file-sharing not from the perspective of the social or creative desirability of the activity (as discussed in the preceding topic), but instead from the perspective of whether copyright law adequately accounts for changes in technology. The second is the clash between Internet communications technologies and existing communications laws developed in the pre-Internet era (such as those involving defamation and anonymous speech).

Some potential readings:
*various court documents and media coverage from the Sony v. Tenenbaum case
*materials related to online defamation and anonymity law (AutoAdmit, Roommates.com, etc.)
*Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (Supreme Court decision striking down parts of Communications Decency Act and also the Court's leading statement on the constitutional status of the Internet)
*Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (Internet services that facilitate file sharing of copyrighted materials can be held liable for infringement)
*Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998 law that extended U.S. copyright principles to digital materials).

Speaker Ideas:
*Google Telecom Lawyer Rick Whitt
*Google Antitrust lawyer Dana Wagner
*Professor Nesson
*Citizen Media Law Project Director David Ardia
*Public Citizen Litigation Group Attorney Paul Alan Levy
*Electronic Frontier Foundation Attorney Fred Von Lohmann

==== Collaborative Composing ====

:[http://www.kompoz.com Kompoz.com]
:[http://www.musicollaborate.com Musicollaborate.com]
:[http://www.indabamusic.com Indabamusic]
:[http://www.ejamming.com eJamming]

Should we expect a rise in collaborative composition on par with the rise of collaborative software? Do musical works composed by complete strangers threaten the "authenticity" of authorship that has so often been defined by artistic unity in the past?

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

* Facebook + google people?
* 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 ===

'''Presenters:''' ''Dharmishta Rood, Jon Fildes''

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!

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.

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.

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 + Environment + Venture Capital ==
* Peter Thiel, John Doerr, Google people
* Presenters: Andrew Klaber and DAL

== 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? [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, [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 ==
'''Presenters: [[dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]''' (Maybe)

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:Mchua|Mel]]'''

=== Title ===

Suggestions:

* All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

=== Precis ===

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes

::Yeah, we probably should work on this part more. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 06:07, 5 December 2008 (EST)

=== Guest wish list ===
* Prof. Yochai Benkler
* Tom Steinberg

=== Readings ===

Needed. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 06:07, 5 December 2008 (EST)

=== Concrete question(s) of the week ===

* When does it work, when does it not? and why?
:: Ok, maybe we need to make these more concrete... [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 06:07, 5 December 2008 (EST)

=== Anything else material towards planning your topic ===

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.

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)

== Meta-Pundit ==

'''Presenters:''' ''Conor Kennedy''

'''PREMISE'''

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, web-only advertisements helped to shape the talking points of media personalities like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Matthews Chris Matthews] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann Keith Olbermann], [http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/ Greta Van Susteren], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Scarborough Joe Scarborough], and sometimes even individuals who try to operate "above the fray" of punditry like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart Jon Stewart], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leno Jay Leno], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Letterman David Letterman] (See [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/09/web_only_campaign_advertisements_flood_presidential_race/ "Web-only campaign advertisements flood presidential race"] "In a study released last summer....the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found most Americans heard about the most famous viral videos because they saw them replayed on TV").

Because a large and increasing number of Americans get their news from media personalities rather than from traditional broadcast or print media sources, these individuals have significant power to shape the national political discussion. Still, beyond campaigns' web-only ads, there hasn't ''yet'' been a concerted effort to use the Internet to directly influence these personalities and their television shows.

'''PROPOSAL'''

This void can be filled by a website that publishes a rating system and gauges/grades each of these media personalities (over multiple periods of time: daily [i.e., per episode], monthly, etc.) with a variety of qualitative metrics.

Ideally, such metrics would focus on process rather than substance (e.g., % of material that avoids explicit mention of either party's talking-points-of-the-day; % of in-show discussion that is active, fair dialogue with guests of opposing perspectives). Some metrics would be determined by the site's designers while others would be generated and selected (i.e., voted on) by the site's users. A team of qualitative analysts would code each media personality's episodes for (1) the site designers' metrics and (2) any given metric a critical mass the website's users select, and publish the results daily.

This website would be most influential as a source for audience feedback beyond bare headcounts (i.e., network viewer ratings). For some media personalities, that feedback will act as a friendly nudge that helps them improve their shows. For others, the ultimate message might sound more like [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8 Jon Stewart on Crossfire].

'''QUESTIONS (each followed by potential answers)'''

*(1) How should this kind of a site be funded, and by whom?
**Non-partisan journalism NGOs through a project grant
**The Berkman Center (see "Donations" link in navigation pane in left frame)
*(2) What kind of knowledge workers would the daily operations require?
**College research assistants as coders
*(3) What kind of goals should such a website pursue?
**Active dialogue
**More informed discussion
**Sophistication of television personalities
**Honesty
**Bipartisanship
**Dedication to truth
**Fighting the political class's elitism
**Fighting prejudices/smears
**Deconstructing euphemistic language/political correctness
**Strengthening/Weakening political parties' control of the national political dialogue
**Expansion of the national political dialogue to include new and unique perspectives
*(4) How else could a pundit-centric website serve to channel the widespread complaints of "Media Bias" into a polished online platform?
**Hall of Shame for self-proclaimed (one-time guest) "Analysts" and "Experts" who actually have no rightful claim to either title.
**Sponsor and/or Host Op-Eds, Blogs, Vlogs, [http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx?p=1 "Blogologues"], and [http://bloggingheads.tv/ "Diavlogs"] by premier Media/Journalism academics.
**Work to immediately uncover the ''original'' sources of stories in order (1) to get a sense of who is already influencing media personalities (and their writers) and (2) to push back against rushed vetting of unsubstantiated stories (a la [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html Martin Eisenstadt])
**Highlight stories/angles the traditional anchors are broadcasting that these hosts are ignoring/purposely passing on.
*(5) How much embedded footage of ''actual shows'' can such a website legally display under Fair Use?
**A good place to start looking is [http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Talking Points Memo's "The Day in 100 Seconds" Vidcast Series]
--[[User:CKennedy|CKennedy]] 01:42, 25 November 2008 (EST)

:There was a group at the University of Michigan looking at a similar issue a couple years ago... if you'd like, I can try to look them up. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 13:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

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

=== Socio-technical Gap ===

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?

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?

*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)

=== One Laptop Per Child ===

Happy to help this group with info as I can. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]]

=== Environmental Concerns ===

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)

== Prediction Markets ==
'''Presenters:''' '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''

Intrade, etc.

[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)

Could prediction markets transform how we govern ourselves? Robin Hanson proposes [http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf Futarchy]. The idea in brief:

"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

= Unclaimed Topics, Categorized =
''Now, with categories! See [[Talk:Topics|Talk page]] for more.''
--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 14:23, 29 November 2008 (EST)

This page is for topics that we have not yet scheduled (but potentially should). Please add suggestions to the bottom of this page, and feel free to modify the descriptions for topics already listed.

== Philosophical Approaches to Internet Communications ==

=== Discourse Theory ===
We should do a survey overview of the topic.

[http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1238 A Summary of Discourse Theory]

Whom do we know as a great person -- a visitor? -- on discourse theory?
* Habermas
* Manuel Castells

=== Marxism ===
should we be thinking about the connection between technology and society and question of an infrastructure and a superstructure?

=== Libertarianism ===
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism|Libertarianism]]

=== Network Theory ===
Another frame for thinking?
idea for speaker maybe [[http://www.stanford.edu/group/song/woody_index.html | Walter Powell]].

== The Internet as a Social and Economic Tool Today ==

=== Interactive Education ===

Building on the work of MWesch (video here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o) think about innovation in the classroom beyond the blackboard. How can we better interact in the classroom and how can technology help?

* Case studies - what does and doesn't work, e.g. tools to train journalists in E. Africa that may have more amounted to dysfunctional imperialism

=== Unconferences ===

Unconferences represent a form of event-based discourse that seems chaotic but is actually organized around a set of well-codified rules intended to encourage initiative-taking by participants and ensure that the event is truly community-run and ad-hoc. Also known as "[http://www.openspaceworld.com/users_guide.htm Open Space]" events, they take several different forms, including [http://www.barcamp.org/ Barcamps] (which have been expanded to podcamps, etc.)

* Tim O'Reilly, foo camp

=== Deliberative Polling Online ===

In a nutshell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_opinion_poll

Here and in other topics, are we too sanguine about deliberative democracy? If we opt for some of these topics, perhaps we should read Ch. 4-5 of [http://books.google.com/books?id=A543N977rS0C Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy].

Use the internet to get not only participation but also reflection

* Deliberative methods more generally
* Jim Fishkin

=== Recording Harvard Law School Classes and Posting Them on iTunes U ===

Law schools tend not to post free class recordings on iTunes U. Should HLS take the opportunity to trailblaze? What are the law-school-specific challenges and the legal issues surrounding publishing audio recordings of HLS classes? What are the benefits? What about recording classes just for the benefit of the students (posted, as on religious holidays, solely on enrolled students' MyHLS pages)

=== Path Dependence and Academia ===

This course inadvertently raises a meta question (at least to me): is academia radically path dependent? That is, do "obsolete" disciplines hang around because of tenure, risk-aversion, or more subtle social pressures? And, for parallel reasons, does academia neglect more recently emergent topics? For one perspective on what a different, future academy could be like, do visit Oxford's [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/ Future of Humanity Institute] and see some of the work of its director, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ Nick Bostrom].

We might also want to have a look at Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

: It seems to me (as a casual observer) that one of the problems is predicting what disciplines will generate future advances at what rate (and, necessarily, what constitutes an "advance") in the first place. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 12:54, 1 December 2008 (EST)

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Semantic Web ===

What has become of this idea? Are we already there? Is it yet to come? Or has it died along the way? [Rainer]

One potential Semantic Web application is [http://www.freebase.com/ Freebase]. It is primitive right now, far less useful than (the simpler) Wikipedia or even Knol. Perhaps there is someone in the field we could bring in with technical expertise?

:Consider this my e-hum in favor of this topic... [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 12:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:I ([[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]) am still interested in this one as well; does anyone (perhaps Prof. Zittrain) have any connections to Semantic Web researchers in business/academia?

=== Language Divides/Autotranslation ===

Though it doesn't penetrate to every physical location on Earth (unless you can afford sattelite link-ups), the internet is an exceptionally global medium. With the barriers to access lower than any earlier medium for high-volume international communication, it represents an opportunity for greater international discourse and the deepening of a sense of global society. But unless we can reassemble the Tower of Babel, significant and entrenched divides exist: people simply don't always understand each other's language.

As certain languages become prevalent for international discourse, native users of that language have an advantage in communication. Auto-translation software such as Google Translate, Babelfish, and many others represent an opportunity to flatten this embeded advantage structure that favors people educated where linguae francae are native languages. Moreover, human translation communities such as [http://globalvoicesonline.org Global Voices Online] provide an edited and selected digest of what the editors notice in many languages.

What are the potential bridges for language divides? Which work better and for what? What are the implications of mistranslations by machines? --[[User:G|G]] 12:25, 28 November 2008 (EST)

=== Cloud computing ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

Do we really want to store all of our personal documents on Microsoft or Google servers one day? [Rainer]

:Very interested in this. I think Prof. Zittrain's theory of generativity is at the center of this, and Danny O'Brien (the inventer of the term "life hack" and, I'm certain, a ''great'' guest) gave an interesting talk on why we should avoid centralization (e.g., identi.ca rather than Twitter) last summer at Open Tech 2008. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 13:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)

=== IPv6 ===

Why are we so slow with the transition to IPv6? Is this a technical, financial or legal issue?
China is far ahead. How does this change the game? [http://news.cnet.com/China-launches-largest-IPv6-network/2100-1025_3-5506914.html Article] [Rainer]

== Communications Norms , Free Speech and the Internet ==

=== The Rise of Anonymity... ===

'''[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]''' (maybe: see below)

"on the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog." Or tall, or 12 years old, or a hairdresser by day, or a lesbian, or in India, or with a harelip, or... but also: now that we can't filter by that by default, what do we filter by? Do we now bias towards good writers - and what of people who communicate best non-verbally?

What legitimate and illegitimate uses for anonymity are available on the internet? When is personal information useful, and when is verification appropriate? Last week's discussion about the different cultures on Wikipedia and Ebay and the use of behavioral enforcement mechanisms (ebay rating system, thumbs up/down-ing other drivers, etc.) reminded me of a panel from my favorite webcomic: http://xkcd.com/325/. As noted in the Properties subtext to the comic, "You can do this one in every 30 times and still have 97% positive feedback." How concerned should we be that people--be they selfish, malicious, or simply lunatics--can exploit such weaknesses in systems for building online reputations? If this is a real problem, how can we change current systems or create new ones to better protect users? And what are the trade-offs that come with better protection? --[[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 11:21, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Also, what are the political and social implications of anonymitiy in countries with less free expression than the United States. In the Chinese example, we might speculate that with the internet more discourse is going on, in contexts ranging from political debates to hobby and commercial communities, but people may be motivated to try to remain anonymous. "Real name" requirements in some countries may challenge this, but circumvention methods exist. Then, how many people use circumvention methods, and how many users use them in a way that truly maintains anonymity? What does it mean that civic discourse might explode, but without real names attached? --[[User:G|G]] 11:58, 28 November 2008 (EST)

To what extent does our received wisdom on anonymity reflect previous modes of technological development? With the advent of data mining, can an author truly be anonymous by leaving his/her name out, if that information can be ascertained quickly? Did old-style pamphletting allow for better anonymity? How good are names at identifying something that is person-like? Does the repeated use of a pseudonym change anything? Could anyone in revolutionary times write under the name Publius? Can anyone do that on wikipedia? Does the design of the internet allow/encourage anonymous postings or have we been lulled into a false sense of security by programs like [http://www.torproject.org/ Tor]? How do avatars and pseudonyms change these discussions? Is this a question of identity or accountability or neither? What does it mean to sue a username? Does the ability to remain unnammed expand the range of discourse or have a chilling effect of its own? Is the act of remaining unnammed ultimately a collective move, as in the case of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) Anonymous], or an inherently individuating move? Would granting users the right to remain pseudononymous create a tragedy of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticommons anticommons], effectively rendering all userboards unusable? Does anonymity allow users to transcend bigotry or does it reinforce it? --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 09:00, 29 November 2008 (EST)

--I would be interested in narrowing this down with someone to a more focused topic, as JZ recommended. --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:11, 1 December 2008 (EST)

=== ... or the Fall of Privacy? ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''' (it looks like there are at least a few presentations' worth of topics under this heading),
'''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]''' (maybe),
'''[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]]''' (maybe: I'm not sure whether it's better to try to talk about added anonymity and reduced privacy together or separately, and how to break privacy up further; it all depends on the focusing issue and/or if we have several classes' worth of interest)
'''[[User:CKennedy|CKennedy]]'''

Despite the superficial anonymity provided by Internet communications, tracing a user of communications technologies has become ever-easier for the backbone provider, government actor, communications tool purveyor, and even the dedicated outside observer. Moreover, many members of the generation raised alongside the Internet spurn the option to use superficial anonymization altogether, posting photos and intimate personal details on social networking sites and rejecting pseudonymization on message boards. How will norms of [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/ privacy] change for the coming Internet generation? How are they already changing?

[http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-23465941_ITM Alan Westin proposed] four states of privacy: ''Anonymity'' (freedom from identification and surveillance in public places and performing public acts), ''Solitude'' (freedom from observation from others), ''Reserve'' (freedom from disclosure of personal information to others), and ''Intimacy'' (freedom from surveillance in a group, in order to allow for free and open personal relationships).

''Anonymity'': As [[User:Megerman|Megerman]] asks in the topic above, has the average citizen lost the ability to pamphlet anonymously with the movement of the public discourse online? What about anonymous protest? Does the fact that the vast majority of participants in online discussion do not have the tools to penetrate superficial anonymity more than make up for the ability of a few dedicated actors to do so (i.e. is the new anonymity "better" than the old)?

''Solitude'': Are reading habits now an open secret, with the URLs of favorite webpages subject to disclosure upon request under the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002703----000-.html Stored Communications Act]? What about citizens' commercial activity online? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia Stanley v. Georgia] strongly suggested that what a person did in the privacy of her own home was her own business as long as others were not harmed. Is this no longer true w/r/t commercial actors such as internet service providers? The government? Requests of commercial actors made by the government?

''Reserve'': What kind of right of reserve should we expect in our commercial transactional records? Health care records? Credit information? Should we rely on general laws like [http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacysummary.pdf HIPAA] to navigate these issues? Terms of Service and other one-on-one negotiations via contract law? Can social and commercial norms do this work in place of law?

''Intimacy'': As communications technologies make conversation over greater distances with fewer obstacles possible, is there a corresponding tradeoff in the loss of intimacy when using such technologies? Is it simply to be expected that email and message-board gatherings will not be free from surveillance? Is it even technologically feasible to make them so? As people rely more on such innovations and less on face-to-face meetings to stay in touch with friends and family, or to engage in political organization and political discourse, will certain bonds of intimacy be loosened or severed?

Is there an inexorable push toward a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society Transparent Society]? Is that a good thing? Is it both [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/03/securitymatters_0306 undesirable] and [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=_bodvczXUIsC&dq=solove+digital+person&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=wnpy3t0qKS&sig=IivUDdJKJ_bmaxDN3R5Ccdg37Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP9,M1 avoidable]? Or is this all overblown hype?
--[[User:Jgruensp|Jgruensp]] 15:17, 29 November 2008 (EST)

=== Sources ===

Where does the information for/during discussions come from? Interfaces/ease-of-access/digestibility of information affects how quickly it can get injected into conversations? (examples: hitting wikipedia in the middle of a dinner discussion, calling an expert friend or hitting another IRC channel to answer a quick question, etc). How does this affect how people prepare for conversations? (If you can easily look up notes during the meeting, why take them down beforehand?) Trying to apply some thoughts about [http://blog.melchua.com/2006/03/31/on-the-future-of-libraries-2/ info access in libraries] to this.

Also, what if any tools exist to help people archive previous states of dynamic sites such as BBSs and news pages? In other words, after information comes into discussions, how can we see what happened after the fact? --[[User:G|G]] 12:01, 28 November 2008 (EST)

=== Identity and Expertise ===

How are participants in an internet dialog identified and credentialed? What gives weight to a participants' arguments - or phrased another way, what type of participants and arguments have weight, and what determines this for each discussion, participant, and discussion point?

=== Free Speech ===

==== 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?

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.

===== Pornography =====
presenters: '''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]''' (Maybe)

* Re: Pornography: I think we might think of Porn on the net not only through the free speech/pedophilia topics. Pornography is one of the main uses of the net, whether we like it or not, and it seems that a great part of the architecture and governance of the web today must have been influenced by that fact. It could be interesting to think about this connection as a structural idea.
* a second point to make is the globalization of police enforcement of child porn. It raises some interesting legal and practical concepts.
--[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]

The Government has on several occasions attempted to place restrictions on Internet access with the intention of preventing minors from viewing pornography. Nobody questions the Government's legitimate interest in restricting pornography, however the Government has run into substantial legal problems with most legislation it has enacted - primarily because the statutes were found to curtail the free speech rights of adults.

Issues:
*Should the Government attempt regulation in this field at all?
** Does self regulation work?
** Is there any way to enact legislation to protect minors without limiting protected adult access?
*What would be defined as the community?
** Is there any way to develop a "community standard" where the Internet is inherently national/global?
*Do adults' rights to view porn mean that the Government must allow them to do so should it create free public access to the Internet?
*Privacy
** If, as currently proposed, a method is developed to determine whether an Internet user is a minor, how do we protect the privacy of the users?
** Do opt-in/opt-out policies go against our rights to privacy?

* The above discussion confuses obscenity with pornography. Obscenity law conveys a form of moral condemnation from the position of the status quo. Pornography law, if it ever existed, attempted a political analysis of equality principles. There are few things that will guarantee a messageboard clusterfuck like a discussion of pornography and heaven forbid you ever suggest that someone might one day take somone's porn away. One of the reasons for this situation is that the views and voices of the pornography-skeptical left have been almost completely drowned out and the vast majority of pornography viewers think that only a puritanical right opposes the idea (and thus each pornographic image consumed becomes a blow against Pat Robertson on behalf of liberty). If you believe that pornography involves serious concerns of civil rights then it's unclear how the internet or modern modes of transmission ultimately changes much other than providing easier access to rights violations. A radical position might exhort an abandonment of a commitment to equality in the face of overwhelming firepower, but that's not one that many would adopt. That said, it's pretty clear you're talking about obscenity, given the reference to community standards and so on. Keeping these two issues analytically separate is always the second thing to go in these discussions (once we've silenced certain voices). --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 17:30, 30 November 2008 (EST)

**I can see how the confusion about pornography and obscenity can arise, but just to be clear, its the regulation of pornography with respect to minors that is raising the issue - not pornography in general. From my limited knowledge of free speech laws, it seems pretty clear that regulation of access to porn by minors is pretty much established. As to the "community standards" this in fact has been raised with respect to porn by the FCC. Currently, there is a proposal to auction spectrum to allow free broadband access to the Internet, provided that it is "porn free." The rationale given is that this is to protect minors, and what porn would be filtered would be based on community standards. See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services, WT Docket Nos. 07-195 and 05-356, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-158 (rel. June 20, 2008). It explicitly states that the provider of the free Internet would need to have a filter that "filters or blocks images and text that constitute obscenity or pornography and, in context, as measured by contemporary community standards and existing law, any images or text that otherwise would be harmful to teens and adolescents. For purposes of this rule, teens and adolescents are children 5 through 17 years of age[.]" Id. (emphasis added). -- [[User:Bepa|Bepa]] 18:30, 30 November 2008 (EST)

***The rabbit gets put in the hat when you say "regulation of pornography with respect to minors." We regulate child pornography (that is, pornography involving minors) and the access to obscene materials by minors. Since [http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hudnut.html Hudnut] this country has not regulated pornography that does not involve children. [http://ifea.net/cipa.pdf CIPA] and other laws regulate the ability of children to access obscene material on the Internet, but does not regulate pornography that does not involve children. Of course, this point is often lost even by somewhat credible observers and it certainly seems a little beyond Rehnquist in [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZO.html United States V. American Library Assn., Inc.]. As far as the proposed FCC rules, my guess is that the Court would find them to be unconstitutional insofar that they prohibited the dissemination of pornography, but they'd be fine if they were just limited to obscenity. Intuitively, this tracks the larger discussion. Those who seek to protect children from obscenity are concerned about issues of morality and sin, not equality and justice. The community standards issue only applies to obscenity and for these reasons. I'm less concerned with the substance of this actual debate (which may be beyond the scope of this class) than keeping the terms straight (and thereby unsilencing a valid viewpoint in these discussions). --[[User:Megerman|Megerman]] 19:13, 30 November 2008 (EST)

===== Schools =====

Courts have recognized that the minors do not have rights to engage in speech that has a substantial impact on the school setting, or runs against pedagogical interests. For example, displaying a sign that questionably promotes drug use while at a school sponsored event is not protected speech. Minors are also most likely prevented from passing around a flier encouraging students to riot if they pass that flier around at school. But what if they pass the message as a digital flier? Perhaps the students create a group on Facebook encouraging students to simultaneously drop their pencils at 11:30 am, and again every 5 minutes for the rest of the day. Is that speech protected if all the activity takes place from the home?

Issues:

*What type of activity should be regulated, if at all?
** Should Internet activity that takes place primarily at home, but creates a disruption at school, be protected?
*** What if the disruption at school is substantial? Not substantial?
*** What if the speech is only tangentially related to the school setting, but still creates some impact there?
*How do we balance the legitimate pedagogical needs of minors to have access to the Internet with the need to create an environment where students can learn, free from distraction?

==== Political Speech and Political Change====

===== Meta-Public Policy =====

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

See, e.g., Larry Lessig's Change Congress movement: http://change-congress.org/about/. Being Larry Lessig, the whole thing is tech-friendly.

===== The First USA CTO =====

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

President-elect Obama's promise to appoint the first USA CTO has turned many heads, and discussions on what the (as of yet unappointed) CTO should do have started up, notably at http://obamacto.org/. Several other related links not purely focused on "US CTO" issues:

* http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/32788/presidential_transition_2_0_how_to_use_new_social_media
* http://www.govloop.com/

===== Deliberation Day =====

The paper on the study, and where similar effects re: citizen participation may be seen.

'''Images online'''

Fanvids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songvid

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] (maybe)'''

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

:I think I added this topic header, but it's just something that interests me; I'm not sure what, if any, ''frontier'' issue we could take up with them. I'm really interested in this kind of online legal services application, though I wonder if Chilling Effects itself has stabilized as an institution. Is there another group doing peer-powered legal work, or can anyone think of an interesting problem to tackle? [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 12:40, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

Presenters: '''[[User:Bepa|Vera]] (maybe)'''

Much like open-source software, the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world. How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way. This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though. With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

Guests: Susan Crawford?

== 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)