The Internet: Issues at the Frontier (course wiki) - User contributions [en]

Internet Governance and Regulation

2009-02-13T22:43:37Z

JZ: /* Precis */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

==Precis==
How should the Internet do what it does? And what is it that the Internet does? Who should be responsible for the Internet?

These are the questions behind the idea of "Internet governance," to which the different Internet stakeholders have conflicting answers - ranging from a strict regulatory scheme, like those applied to traditional communications media (like television and cell phones), to vehement opposition to any kind of formal control structures. Part of this disagreement stems from the Internet's technical nature. which suggests two ways of thinking about Internet governance: (1) control of the mechanisms comprising the technical structure and standards, and (2) regulating the substantive use of the Internet. (Under Yochai Benkler's framework, these would be the "physical infrastructure" and "logical" layers, and the "content" layer, respectively.) The Net's origins as a US Department of Defense-funded research network, and the continued heavy influence on its maintenance and development by US actors, meanwhile, have given rise to conflicting national and international dimensions to these questions. For example, even after ICANN's [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7475986.stm expansion] of the top-level domains, the Department of Commerce has [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html reiterated] that its management of changes to the authoritative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone root zone] file (including its contracts with VeriSign and ICANN) will remain intact. This topic seeks to explore through select case studies the viewpoints of the major Internet stakeholders today (including the US government, ICANN, the UN Internet Governance Forum, businesses, and other private actors), to provide a clearer picture of where Internet governance is headed in the near future, and to establish why (or even whether) it matters.

====Regulation and Control of Technical Structures and Standards====

=====Case Study: ICANN's top-level domain name ("TLD") expansion=====

This summer, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icann Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers] (ICANN) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7475986.stm voted] to expand the possible [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain top-level domain names] (TLDs) such that individuals, businesses, governments, and other entities can register TLDs composed of any combination of letters in any script, so long as they can show a "business plan and technical capacity" to back up their desired domain. The new TLDs will cost in the six figures to register, and will likely start going online in 2009. While there will be an arbitration process for disputed domains (particularly in cases of trademark infringement and geographic domains), most domains will end up going to the highest bidder in an auction process.

''Issues to discuss:''
*Should we be concerned about control of generic domains, like ".news" or ".shop," by a few wealthy individuals or groups?
*Many corporations are [http://www.pcworld.com/article/155542/domain_sale_dangerous.html?tk=rss_news opposed] to this expansion because they already have established .com domains for their purposes and are worried about a potentially huge number of infringing domains, including in foreign languages, which may require them to spend millions to register additional domains. Is this a valid concern?
*How should disputes involving geographic domains be resolved if both parties are government entities? If one party is a private actor (an individual or business) and the other a government entity?
*On a larger scale, should we worry that ICANN is the sole body setting the standards for TLDs and resolving disputes?
*Although the US has supported worldwide participation in the management of country-specific TLDs, it is [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html not willing] to give up oversight of the authoritative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone root zone] file. Who should control the root zone file, and why?

====Regulation and Control of Substance====

=====Case Study: The Internet Governance Forum=====

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Internet_Governance Working Group on Internet Governance] (WGIG) was set up during the first phase of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society United Nations World Summit on the Information Society] (WSIS) in 2003 in order "to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of the Internet by 2005." In its final report, the WGIG provided the following [http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/html/off5/index3.html working definition] of Internet governance:

:''Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.''

Based on the report, the UN Secretary-General established the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum Internet Governance Forum] (IGF) in 2006 with multiple stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, and civil society. The [http://www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm mandate] of the IGF declares that the forum's purpose is to discuss Internet governance-related public policy issues and advise stakeholders on such issues, but it does not have any real decision-making authority. The IGF held its [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/hyderabadprogramme/hyderabadmainsessions third meeting] during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad, India, in which panels explored topics such as expanding Internet access to the next billion people, promoting cyber-security, and global arrangements for managing critical internet resources.

''Issues to discuss:''
*Should the IGF have direct decision-making authority? If so, what substantive areas should this authority cover, how far should it go, and should it be binding? If not, what good does the IGF really do?
*A review of the organizations moderating [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php the many workshops] that took place at the most recent IGF meeting shows a mix of government groups, corporations, and civil groups. Should we expect all these groups to have an equal say in setting the agenda for the IGF? If not, how do we ensure proper representation of all interested groups, regardless of power and influence?
*Is global governance of Internet use a good idea in any respect? If so, is the IGF the best form of this governance?

==Concrete Question of the Week==
With both structure and content, what issues does the Internet raise at the international level that require governance and what are the best ways to solve those issues?

==Guests==
*[http://www.internetgovernance.org/people-mueller.html Milton Mueller] of Syracuse University's [http://www.internetgovernance.org/index.html Internet Governance Project].
*[http://ipjustice.org/wp/about/people/robin-d-gross/ Robin Gross] of [http://ipjustice.org/ IP Justice] and a member of the Advisory Group to the IGF (to be confirmed)

==Session Design==

The session will be designed to highlight the differing opinions on how the Internet should be regulated. The class will be divided into groups that will each be assigned a different interest. We will then conduct class as a discussion where each group will be expected to highlight its concerns and present its views within the discussion.

*'''Groups''': The class will be divided into 5 groups representing what we believe are five different interests: USA, the European Union, China, the Corporate world, and Africa. Each group will be provided with some background information which they should use as a starting point for research.
*'''Background Reading''': Background reading is short and intended to give a broad overview of the current issues up for discussion. The groups should keep the readings in mind when researching their parties' interests.
*'''Individual Research''': Groups will be expected to research the interests and values of their group. Groups should spend about 2-4 hours familiarizing themselves with the necessary information to engage in an informed discussion.
*'''Group Discussion''': Each group is expected to engage in the conversation, highlighting the issues each group feels is important. Through the discussion of one or more case study, we hope to better understand the issues and see where there may be tensions.
*'''Wrap Up''': The class will conclude with a discussion of the issues from the larger perspective, discussing what the class thinks are the most pressing concerns and how they think we can address them.

==Readings==

*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Prof. Milton Mueller
*Prof. Mueller and JZ discussing ICANN and top-level domains (TLDs) on the Internet Governance Porject blog:
**[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html What Zittrain Doesn't Get] (also read the response by JZ in the comments)
**[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/7/3145104.html Response to Professor Zittrain] (also read the comments by JZ and Prof. Mueller following the post).
*[http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - Part 1 of a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.
**[http://publius.cc/2008/12/03/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-2/ Part 2]
**[http://publius.cc/2008/12/04/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-3/ Part 3]
''Optional Reading:''
*[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/hyderabadprogramme Panel discussion transcripts] - from the IGF's latest meeting during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad.
*[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php List of Workshops] from the 2008 IGF meeting.

----
----

==Brainstorming==

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''It will be helpful to differentiate between governing the Internet -- controlling its infrastructure, protocols, or evolution -- and governing use of the Internet. You could pick a hot topic from the FCC's docket, though, and some there are about Internet deployment, such as the free wireless proposal just abandoned. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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)

:'''Sure; you could take this topic a step further by looking at existing scholarship on the topic and/or the just-about-to-be-released report from the Palfrey Commission, chartered by 49 state Attorneys General to discuss protection of minors online. Given its Berkman Center connections, we'd have a good chance of getting the main players in that process to discuss. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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]]

:'''It might be interesting to see if there are contingency plans by various parties -- business, gov't, etc. -- to weather and respond to an Internet outage. We could ask the cybersecurity team from the DoD joint staff to present their most difficult problem here -- they're still in the early stages of thinking this through -- or perhaps cue to the new cybersecurity czar that is rumored to be brought on by the new Administration. (Then again, it might be too soon for that person to want to spend time interacting with a class.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet as International Conflict Zone ===

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)

:'''There is much sound and fury about "cyberwarfare"; I could see a class designed to see if there's a there there on the topic, and whether any of the theory applied to traditional warfare can be deployed to help us understand the phenomenon. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet as an Extension of National Infrastructure ===

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)

:'''There's a lot of interesting stuff to be mined about interexchange policies among Tier 1 internet service providers, and some fun/confusing economics about such interconnections which would be good for the economist types among us. Ramesh Johari at Stanford is doing good work here, and David Clark down the street at MIT would be a natural for this. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=====Case study: a look at the Comcast BitTorrent controversy=====
By now, everyone is most likely familiar with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Network_Neutrality controversy] that arose after Comcast was alleged to have throttled BitTorrent traffic. The FCC decided [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080108-fcc-to-investigate-comcast-bittorrent-blocking.html to get involved], ultimately deciding that Comcast violated the FCC's [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf Internet Policy Statement] and ordered it to [http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/FccComcastOrder.pdf. stop].

''Issues to Discuss:''
*The FCC claims jurisdiction, though it is unclear. Regardless, should the FCC have jurisdiction?
*If not the FCC, who would be the proper governing authority? Should there be one at all?
*What issues should we consider when determining how/if to regulate technical standards?
**What does the net neutrality debate illustrate that could help us reach an answer?

=====Case Study: Congressional, judicial, and private attempts to regulate content on the Internet through laws (like COPPA) and private action=====

There has long been a recognition that there is a legitimate need to regulate content on the Internet, however many attempts to do so have met with resistance. Often, legislative attempts to regulate meet with criticism and challenges from Free Speech activists and organizations.

Beyond direct regulation, another possibility would be the creation of standards to allow private entities to provide effective content control. But would mandating certain technologies lead to effects similar to the V-Chip had on TV? i.e. would it just stifle innovation and limit the introduction of better and more useful technology?

A final possibility would be to allow the market to regulate itself. The government has at times encouraged this option through incentives to help resolve certain issues. For example, the ''Internet Tax Freedom Act'', [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000151----000-notes.html 47 USC 151 note], places a moratorium on taxation of Internet access provided that protections are put in place to protect minors. Perhaps as a result, perhaps due to market forces, ISPs offer filtering technology to those who want it. Like many ISPs, [http://www.comcast.com/Shop/Buyflow/default.ashx?Popup=true&RenderedBy=Products&FormName=ProductDetails&ProductID=20951 Comcast] offers McAfee parental controls as standard in its Internet packages.

''Issues to Discuss''
*How should the Internet be ''shaped''?
*What is the best way to achieve the stated goals?
*What areas, if any, should be encouraged? What areas should be discouraged? how?

===Possible Readings===
*Speta, J., FCC Authority to Regulate the Internet: Creating It and Limiting It, 35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 15 (2004). [http://heinonline.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/luclj35&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav&collection=journals&page=15 HeinOnline]
*Lessig, L., Law Regulating Code Regulating Law, 35 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1 (2004). [http://heinonline.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/luclj35&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav&collection=journals&page=1 HeinOnline]
*[http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.
*[http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-265.html The Politics and Issues of Internet Governance] - an essay by Milton Mueller at the Institute for Research and Debate on Governance
*Mueller and JZ discussing ICANN and top-level domains (TLDs) on the Internet Governance Porject blog: [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html One], [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/7/3145104.html Two].
*ICANN's [http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23oct08-en.htm process] for applying for a new TLD, including the full [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-24oct08-en.pdf draft applicant guidebook] (warning: PDF).
*[http://www.wgig.org/WGIG-Report.html The 2005 WGIG Report] (PDF/MS Word links on page)
*[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/hyderabadprogramme Panel discussion transcripts] - from the IGF's latest meeting during Dec. 3-6, 2008 in Hyderabad.
**[http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops_08/wrkshplist.php List of Workshops] from the 2008 IGF meeting.

Free and Open Source Software

2009-02-04T23:23:55Z

JZ:

'''Topic Owners: [[User:dulles|dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''

Back to [[syllabus]].

'''NOTICE:''' Others should be wary of treating this syllabus as complete until this notice has been removed. That is all. We're working very hard on firming up all the details as fast as we possibly can.

== New formulation ==

Law is Code?

=== Stage One ===

We would like to begin by exploring the phenomenon of free and open source software (F/OSS, hereafter "free software") through three lenses:
* free software as a gift economy
* free software as a traditional market economy
* and free software as a culture shift.

The Hyde reading, which explores the gift economy of research, may be useful to elucidate the gift economics of free software. Although Hyde discusses the gift economics of acamedia, perhaps an analogy can be made between academic research and free software development. Perhaps free software developers are akin to science academics who occasionally get hired into the private research and development market (private software corporations).

In the Lerner reading, we explore the success of free software under traditional economic analyses. We would like to use this to determine what we truly believe the factors are which make free software a viable development process, and to determine why a particular free software project might succeed or fail.

Using the Kelty reading, we hope to elucidate the cultural shifts that occur in free software.

=== Stage Two ===

Given what we know about free software ideology, and the success of the open source model in the non-software world (e.g., Wikipedia and other crowd-sourcing projects), why were the GPL (v2 and v3) development processes so marked by a centralized authority? Would it have been perfectly reasonable to throw up a GPL wiki with its own bureaucrat system (akin wo Wikipedia's), and let the world write its license? If, as Eben Moglen suggests, the creation of GPL v3 was something like the creation of a multiparty transnational treaty to govern the future of the free software movement, why not develop it using the very means that are so successful in creating free software?

=== Stage Three ===

TODO: write up stage 3 wrt open source law

=== Experiment ===

TODO: write up experiment

=== Guiding Questions ===

As we proceed, these will be our guiding questions... (TODO firm it up!)

What is FOSS and where is it going?
# What are the characteristics of an FOSS project that make it successful?
#* Examine the project's cultural and economic properties
# What are the characteristics of software that make the FOSS method viable?
#* Examine the cultural and economic properties of FOSS
# Where is FOSS going from here? how is it changing?
#* Writings that try to explain why FOSS actually follows regular market method to make profit.
#* Greater success outside of the movement (implementation in corporations and the government) - today everybody claim they are free.
#* New hybrids of free and proprietary.

Could FOSS method be used to create better law?
# Why, then, did Stallman take such a heavy hand in GPLv2, Moglen in GPLv3?
#* Again, consider the economic and cultural properties of GPL v2, v3.
# As between two parties bargaining at arm's length, private law (contracts) is akin to FOSS development. Creating a license for the FOSS world is like writing a multilateral treaty for the whole world of software developers. Moglen. so why not approach it just like any other community-built software project? Why use the [benevolent] authoritarian model? In answering this question, consider that other open source-like projects (Wikipedia), which may be termed projects in the method of the intellectual commons, have been greatly successful.
# Generally, is it possible to approach law -- even governance generally --- under the FOSS method?

===Readings===

* [http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/0394715195 The Gift], by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hyde Lewis Hyde]. Chapter Five "The Gift Community" (p. 96-120).
* [http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf Some Simple Economics of Open Source], by Josh Lerner.
* [http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/911/ Faculty Presentation 9/11/2008], by Eben Moglen. (''skim'')
* [http://twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf Two Bits], by Christopher Kelty. Chapters 3 and 6.

== Old formulation ==

===Fundemental Questions===

Why is free software created? Why does it succeed? How can we secure and promote free software?

===Precis===

====Free and is Speech. Free as in Beer.====

Before any discussion of free software, it's important to make sure everybody understands the term. There are two meanings of "free" at work. Free software has zero monetary cost. Nothing. Zip. Nada. It is ''software gratis''. Free software is, in some sense, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware freeware].

But free software is also ''software libre''. This means that it is not tied down by the usual intellectual property rules. Freedom [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html breaks down] into four elements.

# The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
# The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
# The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

====Gift Economics====

Free software [http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf appears to not obey the usual rules of market based economies]. Many of those who contribute to the codebase of large free software projects, for example, are [http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/whowhy.xml unpaid amateurs] working in their free time. We propose that free software is properly understood, in part, using the mechanics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy gift economies] rather than market economies. These are economies which value reputation over profit, where value is had in the giving, not in the taking, and where the wealthiest are those who have given away the most. Certainly some developers, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds Linus Torvalds], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cox Alan Cox], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman Richard Stallman], have earned their share of fame and reputation.

On the other hand, perhaps it's not proper to think of free software as a classical gift economy like those outlined by Lewis Hyde in ''The Gift'' (assigned). In a digital world, a developer who gives away his code still has access to his code. Software replicates. Does this have any bearing on the analysis of free software as a gift economy?

====Market Economics====

Capitalism surrounds free software. Linux distributors such as [http://www.redhat.com/ RedHat] operate in the market economy even though their products are free, depending on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_open-source services based business model]. Furthermore, not all developers are unpaid amateurs. Some are actually [http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6523449045.html paid to do it]. It's not uncommon for a commercial software developer to dedicate part of his work-time to developing free software, especially when their companies depend on that software and have an interest in it's development.

As a capitalist enterprise, why would a company spend its developers' time on contributing to free software? It's true that many commercial enterprises rely on free software, so there's a clear collective interest in its development. But in dollars and cents, is it really worth it for a software company to let its developers spend part of their time writing for the Linux kernel?

====Planned Evolution====

In addition to the usefulness of gift and market economies as tools for understanding free software, it may be useful to consider the movement as a planning or staged happening. [http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/ Prof. Eben Moglen] of the [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ Software Freedom Law Center] asserts that free software as a movement is part of a larger [http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/911/ planned development] of the way we will interact in a digital future. Certainly this is represented in the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html philosophy] of the [http://www.fsf.org/ Free Software Foundation]. Yet [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux GNU/Linux], arguably the most successful free software project, was founded by a man [http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html not particularly fond of ideology], whose [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/msg/b813d52cbc5a044b initial motivations] seemed to relate more to hobby than philosophy.

====Breaking Down the Investigation====

# Motivations: Why contribute to free software as an unpaid hobbyist or as a corporation? Gift economics? Market economics? Planned evolution?
# Success: Free software is successful - why?
# The Law: Given what we can discern about free software's success, how can the American IP regime alter to protect and encourage free software? How do these tweaks highlight the three motivations outlined?

===Guest Wish-list===

* [http://www.mako.cc/ Mako] - as an insider from the free software movement.

===Readings===

* [http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/0394715195 The Gift], by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hyde Lewis Hyde]. Chapter Five "The Gift Community" (p. 96-120).
* [http://www.linux.com/articles/36554 The Gift Economy and Free Software], by Jem Matzan.
* [http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/simple.pdf Some Simple Economics of Open Source], by Josh Lerner.
* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GNU Public License] version 3.
* [http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/911/ Faculty Presentation 9/11/2008], by Eben Moglen. (''skim'')
* [http://badtux.org/home/eric/editorial/economics.php Economics of Open Source Software], by Eric Lee Green.

===Supplemental (non required) Readings===

* [http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/free-software-philosophy.html Philosophies of Free Software and Intellectual Property], by The Famous Brett Watson.
* [http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/ Homesteading the Noosphere], by Eric S. Raymond.
* [http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ The Cathedral and the Bazaar], by Eric S. Raymond.

== Class Twitter Conversation ==

In addition to the listserv, which will doubtlessly allow us to communicate our thoughts between classes and develop our discussion, we propose to use [http://twitter.com Twitter] to create a simultaneous mode of discussion designed to be informal and strongly conversational. Because Twitter limits entries to 140 characters, the service should naturally lend itself to such discussion.

In order to tie our tweets together, we can use the [http://twitter.com/hashtags @hashtags] system. Documentation [http://twitter.pbwiki.com/Hashtags 1] [http://thepaisano.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/twitter-hashtags-and-groups/ 2]. We propose to use the #iif tag. Students may read the hashtag using the [http://hashtags.org/tag/iif hashtags.org] system or at the [http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif Twitter search page]. However we recommend that students follow the #iif hashtag using the RSS feed available at [http://hashtags.org/tag/iif hashtags.org]. The RSS feed from [http://search.twitter.com search.twitter.com] unfortunately drops the username originating the tweet. Students are encouraged to investigate other Twitter client applications and RSS readers in order to make it exceptionally easy to read the #iif tweets and to post updates, making the whole endeavor something akin to a chatroom without requiring that we all log in to IRC.

Session checklist

2009-02-04T17:59:35Z

JZ:

== Before class ==

* Have you confirmed your guest list? (As early as possible)
* Have you settled arrangements with your guests, such as when and where they will arrive, who will meet them, how they will find the room, what they will be doing with the session, whether they will stay for dinner, and so forth? (As early as possible)
* Do you have a room reserved if it will not be Hauser 105 (useful if you've chosen an audience beyond that of the class)? (2 weeks advance notice required; arrange with Moira)
* Do you know what discussion techniques and formats you will be using during class, and is how to use them documented on your wiki page? Have you sent out the relevant prepwork to your classmates so that they can come in ready? (1 week in advance)
* Do you know what technologies you will be using? Have you tested them, and is how to use them documented on your wiki page? Have you sent out the relevant installation/training links to your classmates so that they can come in ready? (1 week in advance; IT needs at least 48 business hours notice for AV requests)
* Do you have your readings worked out and documented, with links, on your wiki page? Have you sent your classmates an announcement/reminder of your finalized readings? (1 week in advance)
* Do you have a precis/briefing summary of your topic up on the wiki, emphasizing the intellectual trajectory of your topic -- what is deemed settled and what questions are thought open? Have you sent a link to this to your classmates? (1 week in advance)
* Do you have a time allocation (how much you plan on spending on each activity and who will lead it) for the 2 hours of class you will be running? Is this posted on your wiki? (1 day in advance)

== During class ==

* Has your A/V equipment been hooked up at least 10 minutes before class start?
* Do you have an IM backchannel to the IIF team (or at least JZ's AIM/Gtalk) prearranged and open?
* Is someone recording/photographing/taking notes of the session?
* Do you have copies of all handouts/worksheets/materials the class will be working with?
* Have the tables, chairs, blackboards, etc. been arranged and cleared for the kinds of interactions you want to have?
* Have you set aside space (and possibly time) for food consumption? Has the food team told you what they'll be bringing?
* Have you introduced your guests to the class?

== After class ==

* Have you sent thank-you notes to your guests?
* Have you checked to make sure that your classmates have finished and posted their deliverables for you so that they are accessible from your wiki page?
* Have you given your classmates feedback on their deliverables?
* Have you updated your wiki page with a summary of results?
* Have you asked the IIF team and an external party for feedback on your updated/summarized wiki page?
* Have you settled food arrangements for next week's class?

== End of term ==

Have you finalized the page for your class session so that it could be used by educators and others looking to cover your topic? (This includes integrating into the page any useful materials or ideas generated in the class session itself.)

Policies

2009-02-04T17:49:03Z

JZ:

== Introduction ==

''Wherein we learn How This Class Works.'' (Note: The content of this page may eventually migrate to the [[Main Page]].)

== Preferences for use of attributed material ==

* Please indicate your preference on [[Permissions]] for usage of material.

== Session design ==

Class sessions are designed and run by student groups; see [[Scheduling]] for details.

See [[Session checklist]] for things you might want to look at if you are a group planning a session or debriefing afterwards.

== Food ==

We aim to feed people during class, to make up for weird evening times and a somewhat ambitious workload.

Food will be handled by the group that ran the previous week's class; the last group will handle the first group's food. The budget is $200 (but less preferred; we'll review this number in a week to check for sanity), and you are feeding 30 people, some of whom may be veg(etari)an (groups should feel free to make a more exhaustive survey of dietary needs).

Permissions

2009-02-04T17:43:22Z

JZ:

== Introduction ==

This course involves using the Internet in novel ways. Some of those ways may involve recording the class sessions and making them available in real time or as archives, and in full or in part, to external audiences -- and soliciting contributions from those audiences. We want to ensure that this experimentation is consonant with participants' privacy expectations. Unless explicitly stated otherwise or agreed below, all content from the class wiki, mailing list, the class time itself, and class-related discussions may be quoted and paraphrased under the Chatham House rule -- i.e. without attribution to the speaker. In other words, it is all right to say "Someone in my IIF class said that..."

== Options ==

For things that can be attributed to individuals, or for which identification with an individual is unavoidable (for instance, video), we have three options; please indicate your choice below or by communicating with the profs --

=== Blanket permission: Attribution is OK ===

Everything is okay to share and attribute to relevant individuals.

* '''support.''' I don't think we will be sharing any confidential details amongst ourselves, and this will make it much easier for our work to be spread. I'd even suggest [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ cc-by] for all our coursework. [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 10:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
* I hereby license all my brilliant pearls of wisdom under this "OK by default" license. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 15:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
* This system is fine with me, too. [[User:Gwen|Gwen]] 19:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
* Works for me. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

=== Attribution must be sought on a case by case basis when class participation or contributions are to be used externally ===

For those who want to attribute a contribution or post something with identifiable individuals, permission must be sought.

=== Blanket denial: Attribution is not wanted under any circumstances ===

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

2009-01-06T23:36:02Z

JZ: /* Precis */

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

== Precis ==
The success of online campagning during the Obama campaign has been unprecedented. But the web is also used for mobilizing people for other kinds of social actions. New tools are emerging for coordinating concrete action and volunteering (pledgebank.org, thepoint.org, zoosa.org) as well as fundraising and matching donors and social entrepreneurs (Facebook Causes, www.betterclace.org, Socialvibe).

What are the success factors of such tools? It seems still unclear if they follow (half-?)established rules of online marketing in the business sector. Or if there are other critical factor. Is it, for example, all about people giving up their anonymity and publicly associating with a cause to mobilize others? What actually spurs people up the ladder of engagement or into offline activism and what does not? Which online structures, tools, networks get people how high up the ladder?

In short: Is there a generalizable model here? If yes, has this model different success factors from the business world? What are cutting-edge examples of successful campaigning/fundraising/mobilization/collaboration? How do they harness different channels and media (www, email, SMS, etc.)?

And even if it works: What are the downsides of this development? First, some companies or platforms might develop into gatekeepers. For example, the head start of Blue Statte Digital is huge. How long will it take competitors to catch up? Second, if participation on these platforms give you more direct access to decisionmakers, donors and civic participation, we might have to worry about a new digital divide. How intensely should Obama listen to the questions posted on change.gov, knowing that they cannot be representative of the (non tech-savvy) population? Third, what new privacy issues are coming up? Every submission to Obama's Open for Question" seems to go directly to Google servers ([http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=303 Article]). Do we want a private company to know people's political opinions?

== Concrete question(s) of the week ==
* What makes online mobilization for a cause successful?
* Is there a generalizable model here? If yes, has this model different success factors from the business world?
* Are there currently new gatekeepers and digital divides emerging that restrict the use of respective tools?

== Contributors ==
It would be good to have both a practicianer and a theoretician

Theoreticians:
* Prof. Yochai Benkler
* Clay Shirky (Here Comes Everybody)

Practitioners:
* someone from MoveOn (Contact via Elana)
* Tom Steinberg
* Sean Parker and Joe Green, founders of Project Agape, the start-up that created Facebook Causes
* Joe Rospars, New Media Director, Obama for America (Elana)
* Ken Banks, FrontlineSMS (Elana)
* Sebastian Benthall, [http://topp.openplans.org/ TOPP]
* Joshua Gay, FSF
* Kathy Paur, [http://actblue.com ActBlue]

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

== Session design ==
Our current idea for session design is structured as a workshop (and discussion afterwards). Each participant will spend the week working on a cause that they are personally interested in, applying the techniques from readings and class to their own project. Key components of this week:

* 2-3 '''readings''' will be sent out beforehand, selected from the above.
* A '''questionnaire''' will be sent out beforehand to all class participants so they can frame the most important aspects of their cause. (For instance: What are the aims of your cause? What technologies do you prefer to use while working on activism for your cause, and why? How many people do you want to mobilize? How deep should their involvement be?) Participants will use the questionnaire to write a very rough draft of a non-profit online participation project for their cause.
* The '''role of our guest experts''' will be to come in as workshop aides; it will be interesting to hear from them what they thinks the most important rules for success are. They'll get to give a short (<10min) intro speech.
* The session will kick off with a '''workshop''' where the students will work on their project. It should be an online project designed to raise and deepen involvement and/or awareness for their cause. For instance, they might contribute to the planning of a conference, create an email-blast marketing campaign, host a party that is heavily advertised online, create or spread viral media, compile statistics on online membership for their cause, etc.
* We will follow that with a '''debriefing''' to discuss how things went and the theories and best practices that apply.

== Readings ==
We have three types of readings for this session:

'''Historical''' resources that come directly from our guests and their experiences.

Guests will be asked to email the class beforehand with a short version of the kinds of things they'd say in a speech to the class, so people know who they'd want to ask for advice during the workshop portion. (Rationale: The time we're together should be spent interacting, there's always plenty of time outside of class for reading.) Guests will also be asked to send the class a link to their favorite resource/article on their project, or something that has informed their own work on their project. Some sample types of resources that might come from this:
* http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/12/10/open-for-questions-participation-from-campaigning-to-governing/
* http://publius.cc/2008/12/09/internet-and-politics-2008-moving-people-moving-ideas/

'''Techniques and tools''' resources, mainly business books that focus on corporate use of the social web, online communities and marketing, etc. This will be pages and chapters from books like this (used as examples, not a final list):

* [http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Social-Web-Customer-Communities/dp/0470124172 Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Groundswell-Winning-Transformed-Social-Technologies/dp/1422125009 Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Start-Ups-Entrepreneurs-Corporations-Communities/dp/0470107421 Smart Start-Ups: How Entrepreneurs and Corporations Can Profit by Starting Online Communities]

'''Theory''' on activism, focusing on cyberactivism. This will consist mainly of scholarly books and papers like the following (used as examples, not a final list):

* (Paper) ''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,'' by the law professor Seth Kreimer. It has some pretty interesting bits -- and some funny moments -- like refrences to John McCain's staff using digital activism in 2001 during his campaign around campaign finance reform. Elana has the PDF.
* (Selection from) ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers.
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/philanthropy_on_the_commons Philanthropy on the Commons]
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-copyrightlaw/benkler_3487.jsp Mining the wealth of networks with Yochai Benkler]
* [http://www.comnetwork.org/resources/brotherton_new_media_091608.pdf Foundations and New Media]
* [http://www.netsquared.org Netsquared]
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf Benkler: The Wealth of Networks]

== Examples and Tools ==
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes
* www.zoosa.org
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]

The three finalists for the [http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/openwebawards2-final-voting-round/ Open Web Awards] in the category "Non Profit Causes" are:
* [http://discoverscholars.org/ DiscoverScholars]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com/ SocialVibe]
* [http://stoppoliticalcalls.org/ Stop Political Calls]

== Old discussion ==
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)

The Future of Copyright and Entertainment

2009-01-06T23:04:13Z

JZ:

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

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

== Precis ==

We are beginning to see more and more choices for where and how to get copyrighted digital art, such as music, videos, and images. Gone are the days when it was either download illegally on programs such as Limewire or pay for them on iTunes. In some instances, copyright is even receding as a battleground issue altogether. In this session, we will be exploring how these new avenues of art consumption & creation might affect the way we experience art and music in our day to day lives--and just what exactly copyright has to do with any of it.

Two central questions will occupy us throughout the session: (1) What is the most viable/desirable distribution method for digital art? (2) For whatever our answers to the first question may be, whom would we need to convince and how?

=== Distribution Mechanisms ===

Few would disagree with the proposition that exclusive rights regimes like copyright seem ill-suited to digital content on the net. Too many users see peer-to-peer downloading as sharing rather than stealing. Too many want to incorporate content into new derivative works like fan videos, musical mash-ups or machinima. Secondary creators thrive in online communities or social networking sites, with email listservs and blogs, where they share the resulting "Fanfiction" or "Fanvids." [http://fanfiction.net Fanfiction.net] has a massive library of fictional works that build upon well established story lines from books, movies and tv shows. The popularity of fandom cannot be underestimated: "As of the week ending Aug. 25, 2007, the site ranked in the 159th position of over 1 million websites, putting Fanfiction.net ahead of sites such as Apple.com" (quote from Time Magazine). The question is, then, if traditional copyright isn't working, what is?

As Diane Zimmerman has observed, recent approaches to distribution of artistic content on the net embody several different responses to this question.

''First,'' some already established powerhouses such as the Beatles and J.K. Rowling have simply chosen to avoid digital content altogether. We might think of this limited group as the Zealots, who would rather avoid the difficulties raised by net-based distribution because, frankly, they can afford to do so. A more tempered version of this attitude is adopted by artists such as Metallica, or the producers of TV shows and movies who allow their work to be distributed on iTunes, but who insist on policing any unauthorized sharing of their work as violations of their copyright in the work.

''A second approach'' has been to rely on contractual digital-rights management (DRM) rather than property rights. iTunes is likely the most obvious example, along with Sony's experiment with DRM compact discs a few years back.

''The third approach'' is that of Creative Commons--subvert the copyright regime altogether by rendering it irrelevant. Artists relying on CC-style licensing schemes simply opt out of an exclusive rights regime by assenting to downstream sharing and in some cases creation of derivative works. [http://Flickr.com Flickr] is a popular mainstream photo-sharing site that allows users to elect various CC marks.

''Finally, a fourth approach'' has been to create radically new marketplaces. One example has been [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). We also find Radiohead using a tip jar for their latest release, where customers pay as little or as much as they deem appropriate.

With this range of options in mind, we will be assessing:

* ''' The mechanisms themselves: ''' Are any of these channels of distribution clearly more likely to succeed than others (and how, by the way, should we be defining success?) What factors are likely to predict success? Is it even possible to make these sort of judgments at this stage, or maybe the goal should really just to allow for the most experimentation as possible and let the marketplace of ideas sort things out?
* ''' The art: ''' Will our eventual choices of distribution affect content?
** If we place focus on peer-based recommendation, are we setting ourselves up for an aesthetic echo chamber, a sort of artistic Republic 2.0?
** When we are downloading individual songs rather than albums, and discovering those songs through automated services like Pandora, are we likely to discover new artists to follow? And would this have disproportionate effects on artists whose work is difficult to categorize? Who work is especially derivative?
** How much remix culture do we want to tolerate? Dial up property rights too much and mashup culture can't survive. But dial them down too much and parodies become less effective--do we need some mechanism of preserving stable cultural artifacts that can fuel future mashups/parodies?
** How is remix culture changing business models in the industry? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmedia_storytelling Transmedia] is multiplatform storytelling, or the use of many media to engage consumers in a particular franchise. Traditional media companies have long used the internet to advertise their products, but now they are launching more sophisticated campaigns that harness the interactivity of Web 2.0. Transmedia seems to mirror if not exploit the consumer involvement that defines fandom (the creation of derivative stories based on popular movies, tv shows and books.) Examples abound, and include:
***In 2008, the WB launched [http://WB.com WB.com], with online only shows. The site allows users to watch tv or "remix tv" with the "eblender"
*** Bravo has a video mashup feature on its [http://bravotv.com/Project_Runway/mashups/index.php website] where users can mash video clips from the show and music
***In 2007, CBS launched a Second Life version of CSI:NY, discussed in the [http://nytimes.com/2007/10/04/arts/television/04CSI.html New York Times]
***In 2005, Audi launched a successful ad campaign called [http://audiworld.com/news/05/060805/content.shtml "The Art of the Heist]

=== Intended Audiences ===

In the first part of the session, we will have discussed what changes might be warranted. In the second part, we'll take up who exactly the audience is that we need to convince-- after all, it's probably not our seminar. Is it institutional gatekeepers like movie studios and record companies, or is their control waning? Is it simply a critical mass of artists who will use Creative Commons or some equivalent move away from traditional exclusive rights regimes? Is it a critical mass of consumers who will actually begin using these websites rather than iTunes? Legislators? Judges? Steve Jobs? At the end of the day, who are we trying to convince--who do we *need* to convince?

== Possible Readings ==

* James Boyle on [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/130 mashups]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/arts/music/04radi.html Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget), N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 2007].
* Diane Zimmerman, ''Living Without Copyright in a Digital World'', 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1375 (2007).
* Michael W. Carroll, ''Whose Music Is It Anyway? How We Came to View Music as a Form of Property'', 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1405 (2004).
* Sarah Trombley, Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 647 (2007)
* Sean Leonard, Celebrating Two Decades of Unlawful Progress: Fan Distribution, Proselytization Commons, and the Explosive Growth of Japanese Anime 12 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 189 (2005)
* IN THE FACE OF DANGER: FACIAL RECOGNITION AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY LAW
* [http://convergenceculture.org/ Convergence Culture]

== Session Format ==

A diversity of perspectives on remix culture and the limits of the copyright system will be the best way to explore this topic. We would like a panel of artists, industry actors and academics to present their opinions to the class and to share relevant research/projects.

== Guest Wishlist ==

* ''Artists''
** Radiohead (worth a shot, right?)
** Brian Burton (aka DJ Danger Mouse) and/or Downhill Battle
** Girl Talk
** Billy Bragg
* ''Industry Execs.''
** Jan Jannink (co-founder of Imeem, formerly of Napster)
** John Buckman (Magnatune Records)
** Ralph Kosterfounder and president of Areae producing an upcoming platform for online games called Metaplace.
** Illclan.comanimation studio, machinima
** Electric Sheep Companyanimation studio, machinima
** Jeff GomezCEO of Starlight Runner Entertainmenttransmedia
** Alex Chisholm and Stacey Lynn Schulmanaudience participation, changing models in the mainstream media.
* ''Academics''
** James Boyle (Duke Law School & chair of Creative Commons)
** Terry Fisher (HLS & Noank Media)
** Diane Zimmerman
** Henry Jenkins
** Francesca Coppa
** Rebecca Tushnet
** Grant McCracken

:'''The Big Think team might be able help secure some of these folks -- hit me up at peter@bigthink.com if you'd like some assistance making contact. [[User:PeterH|PeterH]] 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''You might check out some of Terry's and others' work on "semiotic democracy," with an eye towards seeing (1) whether we buy the basic theory and (2) if so, what policy prescriptions or other action items might emerge from it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Future of Copyright and Entertainment

2008-12-16T05:30:47Z

JZ:

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

back to [[syllabus]]

=== Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music and other Performance Art ===

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. In some instances, copyright is even receding as a battleground issue altogether. In this session, we would be exploring how these new avenues of music consumption & creation might affect the way we experience music in our day to day lives--and just what exactly copyright has to do with any of it. The following are a few examples of some points of tension.

First, we may consider the rise of alternative marketplaces for music. 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). We also find Radiohead using a tip jar for their latest release, where customers pay as little or as much as they deem appropriate.

Second, it has been said that iTunes is changing our musical culture from an "concept based" one to a "song based" one. The transition means that the album becomes less and less of a meaningful unit of creativity; consumers are more likely to think of the tracks as individual songs than as parts of a coherent whole. Music critics might follow suit. It's worth asking whether this trend will continue--does the move to digital media necessarily produce this result? The potential demise of the album provides a useful case study of how means of consumption and distribution affects how we conceptualize the music we experience.

:'''I've heard this complaint since the rise of the CD player and shuffle play! Interesting, but has it developed in the past 20 years? And how to move from crystal ball future-prediction questions towards issues with a policy dimension? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Third, with the rise of peer-recommendation services and internet-radio stations that are driven by a listener's past interests, it's worth asking just where & how we'll be discovering new music in the future. When we are downloading individual songs rather than albums, and discovering those songs through automated services, are we likely to discover new artists to follow? Or does "the artist" as a predictor of our aesthetic taste begin to recede in importance?

:'''Of course, connects to Cass's Daily Me / Republic 2.0 worries. You might see if Cass wants to present something related to that this week. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

''Some possible questions of the week:''

* In 5 years, where are we likely to be getting our music from?
* Are any of the models described above likely to succeed commercially?
* Are our methods of music consumption likely to have an impact on our methods of music production? Is this likely to have an affect on the sort of music available to us?
* How closely will we be following particular artist's careers? Is the rise of peer-recommendation services likely to decrease the importance of brand loyalty to an artist? With alternative indicators of whether we're likely to enjoy something, will we see fewer listeners buying the latest album? Does anyone even care about albums anymore?
* What affect will all of this have on our inclination and capacity to branch out in our tastes? For those that worry about internet echo chambers, should we be just as worried about an echo chamber for the arts?
* Just where does the recording industry fit in to all of this?
* How much does copyright have to do with the new strategies being developed for distributing music online? Where would changes in copyright law make the most difference? The least difference?

'''Possible Readings'''

* James Boyle on [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/130 mashups]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/arts/music/04radi.html Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget), N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 2007].
* Diane Zimmerman, ''Living Without Copyright in a Digital World'', 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1375 (2007).
* Michael W. Carroll, ''Whose Music Is It Anyway? How We Came to View Music as a Form of Property'', 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1405 (2004).

'''Possible Guests'''

* Radiohead (worth a shot, right?)
* Brian Burton, aka DJ Danger Mouse
* Girl Talk
* Jan Jannink (co-founder of imeem, formerly of Napster)
* James Boyle (Duke Law School & chair of Creative Commons)
* Terry Fisher (HLS & Noank Media)
* John Buckman (Magnatune Records)
* Downhill Battle

=== The Proliferation of Imagery Online ===

This topic is expansive, but there are three areas that are particularly interesting:

* Mainstream media and fan culture
* Changing expectations about privacy
* Sharing media internationally

Web 2.0 allows people to create and share audio visual works that borrow from mainstream media. The proliferation of images online presents new challenges to the copyright regime. Music and video is taken from digital sources and manipulated to create new works. These "Fanvids" are easy to distribute because they are digital media. Their creators thrive in online communities with email listservs and blogs. Or you can visit www.fanfiction.net for a massive library of fictional works the build on well established story lines from books, movies and tv shows. "As of the week ending Aug. 25, 2007, the site ranked in the 159th position of over 1 million websites, putting Fanfiction.net ahead of sites such as Apple.com" (quote from Time Magazine)

Although many of these works potentially infringe upon the original works, industry figures are looking to harness the free marketing...
* Marvel Studios head quoted saying “ I now consider [fans] filmmaking partners”
* CBS has promised to allow fans to post clips of shows and even “mashups” or simple fanvids on the internet
* Bravo has Video Mashups on its Project Runway website
The internet encourages semiotic democracy, but to what extent should we allow shared cultural references to be deconstruct by copyright infringers?

Social networking sites such as myspace.com, facebook.com and flickr.com feature many photographs that push the limits of people's privacy expectations. Lawsuits may proliferate, like Chang v. Virgin Mobile (complaint available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01767/171558/)
Given the speed and ease with which we can communicate with each other on the internet using words, images and sounds, how does our consumption of media change?

International art forms are now enjoyed almost instantaneously across borders, as unauthorized copies are posted on the internet. We all know about American cultural products exported abroad, but the internet also allows many interesting forms to be brought in, such as Japanese anime, subtitled by amateurs ("fansubbing" is explained further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub)

''' Possible Readings'''

* Sarah Trombley, Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 647 (2007)

* Sean Leonard, Celebrating Two Decades of Unlawful Progress: Fan Distribution, Proselytization Commons, and the Explosive Growth of Japanese Anime 12 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 189 (2005)

* IN THE FACE OF DANGER: FACIAL RECOGNITION AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY LAW (Harvard Law Review article, uploaded to site, but I cannot figure out how to link to it.)

'''Possible Guests'''

* Rebecca Tushnet
* reps from Mainstream Media to comment on ways to collaborate with/crush fan culture.
* Terry Fisher
* will think of more as soon as exams are over. :)

:'''You might check out some of Terry's and others' work on "semiotic democracy," with an eye towards seeing (1) whether we buy the basic theory and (2) if so, what policy prescriptions or other action items might emerge from it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Old Laws/New Media

2008-12-16T05:16:58Z

JZ:

Topic Owners: Matt Sanchez, Debbie Rosenbaum, Shubham Mukherjee

back to [[syllabus]]

This topic concerns the tension that occurs when we attempt to apply old laws to new media and communications technologies (including the Internet). The discussions in this session should provide a useful legal perspective on the societal issues addressed in the sessions regarding music, news, and other communications media.

:'''You'll want to coordinate with the publication and journalism weeks if possible. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

'''Tentative "questions of the week" '''
* How has new media affected traditional communications and media industries and challenged traditional law?
* How has traditional law challenged new media?

:'''For our purposes, questions like these call for a case study to bring it into a week's focus. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

* Should new media be treated like one of the traditional media (print, broadcasting, or common carriers), a hybrid, or something entirely new?

:'''I'd start with a problem for which treating it one way or another represents a solution (and/or an introduction of new problems).

* 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?

:'''What ''is'' 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?

'''Tentative ideas for topics'''
* Copyright law (e.g., recording industry's litigation campaign against filesharing) (including 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)
* Speech-related law (e.g., defamation, anonymous speech rights)
* Privacy laws

'''Possible guests'''
* Google Telecom Lawyer Rick Whitt
* Google Antitrust Lawyer Dana Wagner
* Berkman Center's David Ardia, who runs the Citizen Media Law Project
* Cary Sherman of RIAA
* Professor Charles Nesson
* Public Citizen Litigation Group Attorney Paul Alan Levy
* Electronic Frontier Foundation Attorney Fred Von Lohmann

'''Possible 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).

''' Other considerations'''
* TBD

:'''So far some really broad questions -- there are a million directions you could take with this. Tenenbaum might not be a bad case study; I'm sure Nesson would be interested in presenting. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 05:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Google Book Search Settlement

2008-12-16T04:52:05Z

JZ:

'''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

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)

:'''Might be worth coordinating with the people doing media/press day -- could make them back to back and have them relate in some way. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== 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)

:'''Harvard has been taking a leadership role on open access. We could definitely do a session on this -- Stuart Shieber, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey would be natural guests or people to talk to to narrow down the questions. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

==== 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 Wheeler 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)

Stumbled across a fledgling project that seems to be similar (in some respects) to this issue [http://w.cali.org/eLangdell here]. Doesn't look like it's actually operational at the moment, though. [[User:Lbaker|Lbaker]] 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

==== 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)

:'''Interested to hear what people might find. :) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=== 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?]

:'''Once again Berkman Center alums and affiliates are all over this -- Alex MacGillivray for Google and Jeff Cunard for the publishers. We could pull together a great session on the deal, although it takes some time to absorb its parameters -- before getting to a place where we can have a cutting-edge discussion about it. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

==== 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)

:'''An embarrassment of riches -- great ideas here. Now to home in on one! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Free and Open Source Software

2008-12-15T16:49:30Z

JZ:

'''Topic Owners: [[dulles]]''','''[[Ayelet]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

=Precis=
=Guest wish list=
* [[http://mako.cc| Mako]]
* [[http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/index.html| Eric von Hippel]]
* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hyde|Lewis Hyde]]
* Eric Raymond/OSI ?
* PJ/Groklaw

=readings=

* something about [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy| Gift economy]] - Mauss; Hyden
* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar| The Cathedral and the Bazaar]]

=basic questions=

*Copyright and open software – free as in beer v. free as in speech
*economy v. culture
* inside and outside – insiders motivation v. legal regime
* gift v. reputation

* 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]])

* 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)

=Misc=

:'''Key will be to crystallize to a particular issue or question. That could be done by selecting one or two academic works in progress by a leading and/or provocative scholar, or it might be done by talking to Eric Raymond about his biggest worries and about the evolution of the Open Source Initiative. A lot of his work has to do with keeping a political coalition together, and he might have some good stories and problems to bring to us. If you're game, maybe reach out to him? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org

2008-12-15T16:46:18Z

JZ:

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

=== Precis ===

How to effectively design an online drive/event/project to get participation in your cause

:'''Question behind the question: does one size fit all, or are online participation ventures idiosyncratic to a time/place/group/circumstance? (I see you ask that below!) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes
* www.zoosa.org
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]

The three finalists for the [http://mashable.com/2008/12/03/openwebawards2-final-voting-round/ Open Web Awards] in the category "Non Profit Causes" are:
* [http://discoverscholars.org/ DiscoverScholars]
* [http://www.socialvibe.com/ SocialVibe]
* [http://stoppoliticalcalls.org/ Stop Political Calls]

=== Guest wish list ===
* Prof. Yochai Benkler
* Tom Steinberg
* Sean Parker and Joe Green, founders of Project Agape, the start-up that created Facebook Causes
* Joe Rospars, New Media Director, Obama for America (Elana)
* Ken Banks, FrontlineSMS (Elana)
* Sebastian Benthall, [http://topp.openplans.org/ TOPP]
* Joshua Gay, FSF
* Kathy Paur, [http://actblue.com ActBlue]

=== Readings ===

We have three types of readings for this session:

'''Historical''' resources that come directly from our guests and their experiences.

Guests will be asked to email the class beforehand with a short version of the kinds of things they'd say in a speech to the class, so people know who they'd want to ask for advice during the workshop portion. (Rationale: The time we're together should be spent interacting, there's always plenty of time outside of class for reading.) Guests will also be asked to send the class a link to their favorite resource/article on their project, or something that has informed their own work on their project. Some sample types of resources that might come from this:
* http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/12/10/open-for-questions-participation-from-campaigning-to-governing/
* http://publius.cc/2008/12/09/internet-and-politics-2008-moving-people-moving-ideas/

'''Techniques and tools''' resources, mainly business books that focus on corporate use of the social web, online communities and marketing, etc. This will be pages and chapters from books like this (used as examples, not a final list):

* [http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Social-Web-Customer-Communities/dp/0470124172 Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Groundswell-Winning-Transformed-Social-Technologies/dp/1422125009 Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Start-Ups-Entrepreneurs-Corporations-Communities/dp/0470107421 Smart Start-Ups: How Entrepreneurs and Corporations Can Profit by Starting Online Communities]

'''Theory''' on activism, focusing on cyberactivism. This will consist mainly of scholarly books and papers like the following (used as examples, not a final list):

* (Paper) ''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,'' by the law professor Seth Kreimer. It has some pretty interesting bits -- and some funny moments -- like refrences to John McCain's staff using digital activism in 2001 during his campaign around campaign finance reform. Elana has the PDF.
* (Selection from) ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers.
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/philanthropy_on_the_commons Philanthropy on the Commons]
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-copyrightlaw/benkler_3487.jsp Mining the wealth of networks with Yochai Benkler]
* [http://www.comnetwork.org/resources/brotherton_new_media_091608.pdf Foundations and New Media]
* [http://www.netsquared.org Netsquared]
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf Benkler: The Wealth of Networks]

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

* What makes online campaigning successful? What makes online fundraising successful? What makes online activism/mobilization successful? What makes online collaboration for good causes successful?
* What actually spurs people up the ladder of engagement or into offline activism and waht does not? Which online structures, tools, networks get people how high up the ladder? Which one's should you use for which "height"? What are their individual costs?
* Is there a generalizable model here? If yes, has this model different success factors from the business world?
* What are cutting-edge examples of successful campaigning/fundraising/mobilization/collaboration? How do they harness different channels and media (www, email, SMS, etc.)?

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

==== Session design ====

Our current idea for session design is structured as a workshop (and discussion afterwards). Each participant will spend the week working on a cause that they are personally interested in, applying the techniques from readings and class to their own project. Key components of this week:

* 2-3 '''readings''' will be sent out beforehand, selected from the above.
* A '''questionnaire''' will be sent out beforehand to all class participants so they can frame the most important aspects of their cause. (For instance: What are the aims of your cause? What technologies do you prefer to use while working on activism for your cause, and why? How many people do you want to mobilize? How deep should their involvement be?) Participants will use the questionnaire to write a very rough draft of a non-profit online participation project for their cause.
* The '''role of our guest experts''' will be to come in as workshop aides; it will be interesting to hear from them what they thinks the most important rules for success are. They'll get to give a short (<10min) intro speech.
* The session will kick off with a '''workshop''' where the students will work on their project. It should be an online project designed to raise and deepen involvement and/or awareness for their cause. For instance, they might contribute to the planning of a conference, create an email-blast marketing campaign, host a party that is heavily advertised online, create or spread viral media, compile statistics on online membership for their cause, etc.
* We will follow that with a '''debriefing''' to discuss how things went and the theories and best practices that apply.

==== Old discussion ====

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)

:'''Very cool. You might consider expanding the topic beyond a how-to toolkit and think about how we'd answer questions like
::'''Are these organizing tools and practices creating new digital divides as they bridge old ones?
::'''Are there new gatekeepers emerging who can control the use of these tools?
::'''If you ran such a tool, would it be right to restrict its use to only those whose causes you agree with? (What if FB did something like that; in fact, does it, if, say, someone created a KKK FB group? Hasn't there been some issue with anti-Israel groups on FB and pressure to shut them down?) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Internet and Societal Inequity

2008-12-15T16:36:28Z

JZ:

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

== Working Framing ==

=== Title ===

I'll suggest: ''The Internet and the Offline World?'' Is this uncomfortably dichotomizing? I think it can nicely incorporate both social inequity and environmental impacts of online actions. --[[User:G|G]] 02:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Precis ===

Many of the frontiers of the internet are located at the present upper limit of innovation or social development, but the most vivid frontier is the border between online and offline. This session is designed to complicate that division and explore solutions to some of the problems it presents. After years of discussion of a "digital divide" between people with and without internet access, some social scientists have turned their attention to the differences in ways people use the internet. Are people logging on to take full advantage of the latest collaborative media and an empowering access to information? Are they logging on to shop and chat, but not seeing the same benefits as early adopters? Relatedly, how does the internet and its social configurations affect people who do not log on? Does increased connectedness among people who are online isolate those who aren't from opportunity?

A second important way in which rapid growth of internet infrastructure affects the offline world is that, indeed, the internet has a physical infrastructure. From individual terminals to fiber-optic lines and data centers, the physical footprint in mineral and energy consumption is enormous. Moreover, the conditions of disassembly and recycle of retired machinery are usually not ideal. Indeed, recent media reports have explored the intensity of environmental and human impact in "illegal" but thriving e-waste processing towns in China and elsewhere. The human impact, in the form of noxious inhalation and contaminated food and water supplies, is unsurprisingly felt by people who already have few socioeconomic opportunities.

In this session, we set out to address how online society can reduce its own negative impact, or even work toward positive effects specifically targeted at the externalities of a thriving online space.

=== Guest wish list (if any) ===

* Eszter Hargittai, who is a present Berkman fellow, has done empirical work on web use in a diverse socioeconomic sample.
* Someone who understands the environmental impacts and contexts of computer components?

=== Readings (if any yet; OK to be preliminary) ===

* [http://www.webuse.org/papers?id=participation-divide Hargittai, E. & G. Walejko. (2008). The Participation Divide: Content Creation and Sharing in the Digital Age. Information, Communication and Society.]

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

* How can online society incentivize responsible offline behavior?
* What might a "responsible surfing" campaign look like, and what would be its metrics?
* Can computers and other network components be built for safer disassembly and easier recycling?

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

== Preliminary Framing ==

=== 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?

=== 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)

Perhaps a way to innovate on these questions would be a system for tracking these offline effects of online behavior. Track hardware? A certification scheme? A carbon footprint clock for ''online'' activities? --[[User:G|G]] 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:'''Very good topic. I'd recommend focusing on the first half, which is rich enough to fill a whole session and associated readings and mindshare, rather than dividing between the latest on digital divide stuff and the environmental stuff. Eszter would be a natural guest for this, and I think it would be great to push her to policy proposals -- something social scientists usually shy away from. What would she want gov't or others to do to address the more subtle inequalities she wants to highlight? Whenever various people call for "more education" as a solution, as a practical matter, is that a solution at all? (Are there examples of "more education" working, when deployed in a self-conscious way? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Prediction Markets

2008-12-15T16:28:39Z

JZ:

'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''

back to [[syllabus]]

Some more helpful material:

* A primer on the [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1134563_code183716.pdf?abstractid=1134563&mirid=1 legal status] of prediction markets.
* The CTFC wants to know if it should [http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/proposedrules/2008/e8-9981.html regulate] them.
* If they can be regulated, could they be [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6716/is_4_27/ai_n29450615/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 taxed] as well?
* Our very own Prof. Sunstein gives his comments on prediction markets and [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID621128_code249436.pdf?abstractid=604641&mirid=1 group deliberation].

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."

'''Some general and tentative questions'''

* To what extent should the government be engaged in the regulation of prediction markets; should it and how might it change current structures to be more accommodating?

* To what extent should government be involved in administering or using prediction markets (e.g., a la Hanson's suggestions)?

* For ethical or other reasons, should we be skeptical about using prediction markets for purposes such as predicting [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market/index.html terrorist attacks] and the like? What about for predicting regular crime (see [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 this proposal])?

* More generally, if we think prediction markets are a useful tool, and yet it seems clear that they generate a considerable amount of unease, can we think about why and how policymakers might respond? Can design of the markets (reducing inaccuracy, or reducing concerns about rewarding misbehavior that might crop up if we have terrorism or crime futures) solve these problems or are some more fundamental?

'''Some tentative guest ideas'''

* Michael Abramowicz
* Justin Wolfers
* Bo Cowgill, Hal Varian: Google prediction markets
* Robin Hanson

'''Possible Readings'''

* academic literature on prediction markets, either [http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/Predictionmarkets.pdf generally] or focusing on [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 particular] [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928896 applications]

* relevant chapters from Professor Sunstein's Infotopia

* Michael Abramowicz's book [http://www.amazon.com/Predictocracy-Market-Mechanisms-Private-Decision/dp/0300115997 Predictocracy]

'''Other ideas'''

One obvious thought is to see whether the class can play around with using prediction markets, though more thought needed on what we'd want to predict. Incentives for accurate predictions like t-shirts?

Will Harvard give us some small amount of money to invest for the semester? We could have an auction to determine whose investment ideas we use. The incentives would work so that you would only bid more to control the investment if you actually thought your investment idea would generate more net return to you (minus what you spent on the auction), despite it being divided up among the class.

:'''Looks great. Harvard will not give us money to gamble (!), but some form of experiment would be fun, and maybe we can design one that draws in audiences outside the class. Might be good to think about prediction markets of the future -- perhaps ones where the ants making the predictions aren't even aware that they're doing so. (Consider Google's recent cooperation with the US Centers for Disease Control to associate a spike in searches for flu medicine with a prediction that a particular region will experience a health emergency.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Future of News

2008-12-15T16:18:31Z

JZ:

'''Topic owners:''' ''Dharmishta Rood, Jon Fildes''

back to [[syllabus]]

{{TOCright}}

==Precis==

==Summary==

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]. Some, such as the Tribune group, are saddled with huge debts and have filed for [http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-081208tribune-bankruptcy,0,3718621.story bankruptcy]. 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] have even experimented with 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 there is a paradox; the web offers organisations a huge opportunity to reach out to audiences and connect with them in new ways.

This class will seek to explore at least two of the challenges currently facing the media industry:

* What will the business model of the future look like? As Richard Sambrook , Director of the BBC's Global News division, [http://sambrook.typepad.com/sacredfacts/2008/11/future-of-news.html says]: “Newspapers and broadcasters have lived for decades by selling audiences to advertisers. Now the number of eyeballs per page or per programme is falling - but we have much greater detail and granularity about where they are going and what they are doing online. Media organisations have to find a way to extract the commercial value from that”. 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. Will these work? Are these the right approach?

* What will the newspapers or media outlets of the future look like? The New York Times is using its website in [http://vizlab.nytimes.com/ new and innovative] ways. Other [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-wiki-splash,0,1349109.htmlstory experiments] papers have been less successful. So, how should papers engage with their audience? Is news reporting now a collaborative process? How should they respond to citizen journalism? Are they competing or should they - and can they - work together?

This class will explore some of the issues facing the future of the news industry. Could they disappear? Does it matter if they do? What values are at stake beyond what the markets appear to be able to sustain? 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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old media”?

==Concrete Question of the Week==

==Possible contributors==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gillmor Dan Gilmour]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jarvis Jeff Jarvis]
*[http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/15/business/fi-timesbiobox15 Russ Stanton] at the LA Times.
*Someone from the NYT behind sites, such as the [http://vizlab.nytimes.com/ Visualisation Lab] or [http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/timesextra/ Times Extra]
* someone else from a failing local paper?
* someone from the [http://civic.mit.edu/ MIT Center for Future Civic Media]?

==Possible readings==

* Boing Boing post by Clay Shirky: [http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/08/the-newspaper-indust.html The Newspaper Industry and the Arrival of the Glaciers]
* A view from the other side: a newspaper journalist [http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20081211_Beyond_the_Spin__Rethinking_journalism_spiel.html ignores the potential of the web]
* Columbia Journalism Review article: [http://www.cjr.org/feature/overload_1.php Overload!]- Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information
* The [http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf AP report (PDF)] mentioned in Overload!
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/11/no-freaks/ a short introduction to the newspaper crisis on the Daily Show]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/12/entrepreneurial-journalism-is-not-an-oxymoron/ Hey let's write some Journalistic Innovation grants... it works for Jeff Jarvis' class...]
* [http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/12/updating-the-pulitzer-prizes.html Online Pulitzers anyone?]
*"But it was - and the Times pegs this more recently - a bubble, a false economy. If there was a golden age of newspapers, I say it was probably two to four decades before that, when cities had many papers, many voices, many views, and papers still spoke for and with the people.
Sound familiar? That’s where we’re headed again with the internet: many voices, many views, and now it’s the people talking." from [http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/12/10/poor-chicago/ Poor Chicago] by Jeff Jarvis"
*[http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/timesextra/ Times Extra!] and some [http://www.mondaynote.com/2008/12/07/light-at-the-end-of-the-pure-player-tunnel-it%E2%80%99s-not-a-locomotive/ thoughts about it and other things]
*[http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/12/twitter-gold-mine.html An add model based off of twitter?] How could this be applied to news?
*for those of you who have never read online news[http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/10-things-every-newspaper-and-magazine-website-must-do/ 10 things every newspaper and magazine website must do]

==Possible tools==

Could we a discussion before, during and after the event using tools such as:

* [http://seesmic.com/ Seesmic]: allows video conversations.
* [http://phreadz.com/ Phreadz]: allows threaded multimedia conversations using video, images, text, audio or links. (Currently in closed Beta but we can ask for accounts)

:'''Looks fantastic. Perhaps of most interest would be to bring in someone from a paper who is currently struggling with this and talk it through, along with a policy proposal or two. I think someone from the New Republic just proposed a new "federal writers" program to save journalists (!), harkening back to a similar program during the 30's that encouraged people (some of whom would later become famous writers) to collect oral histories of various regions and subcultures of the US. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T16:14:00Z

JZ: /* Internet as an Extension of National Infrastructure */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''It will be helpful to differentiate between governing the Internet -- controlling its infrastructure, protocols, or evolution -- and governing use of the Internet. You could pick a hot topic from the FCC's docket, though, and some there are about Internet deployment, such as the free wireless proposal just abandoned. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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)

:'''Sure; you could take this topic a step further by looking at existing scholarship on the topic and/or the just-about-to-be-released report from the Palfrey Commission, chartered by 49 state Attorneys General to discuss protection of minors online. Given its Berkman Center connections, we'd have a good chance of getting the main players in that process to discuss. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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]]

:'''It might be interesting to see if there are contingency plans by various parties -- business, gov't, etc. -- to weather and respond to an Internet outage. We could ask the cybersecurity team from the DoD joint staff to present their most difficult problem here -- they're still in the early stages of thinking this through -- or perhaps cue to the new cybersecurity czar that is rumored to be brought on by the new Administration. (Then again, it might be too soon for that person to want to spend time interacting with a class.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet as International Conflict Zone ===

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)

:'''There is much sound and fury about "cyberwarfare"; I could see a class designed to see if there's a there there on the topic, and whether any of the theory applied to traditional warfare can be deployed to help us understand the phenomenon. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet as an Extension of National Infrastructure ===

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)

:'''There's a lot of interesting stuff to be mined about interexchange policies among Tier 1 internet service providers, and some fun/confusing economics about such interconnections which would be good for the economist types among us. Ramesh Johari at Stanford is doing good work here, and David Clark down the street at MIT would be a natural for this. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T16:12:04Z

JZ: /* Internet as International Conflict Zone */

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T16:10:43Z

JZ: /* Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''It will be helpful to differentiate between governing the Internet -- controlling its infrastructure, protocols, or evolution -- and governing use of the Internet. You could pick a hot topic from the FCC's docket, though, and some there are about Internet deployment, such as the free wireless proposal just abandoned. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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)

:'''Sure; you could take this topic a step further by looking at existing scholarship on the topic and/or the just-about-to-be-released report from the Palfrey Commission, chartered by 49 state Attorneys General to discuss protection of minors online. Given its Berkman Center connections, we'd have a good chance of getting the main players in that process to discuss. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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]]

:'''It might be interesting to see if there are contingency plans by various parties -- business, gov't, etc. -- to weather and respond to an Internet outage. We could ask the cybersecurity team from the DoD joint staff to present their most difficult problem here -- they're still in the early stages of thinking this through -- or perhaps cue to the new cybersecurity czar that is rumored to be brought on by the new Administration. (Then again, it might be too soon for that person to want to spend time interacting with a class.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet as International Conflict Zone ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T16:07:09Z

JZ: /* Rights of Minors */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''It will be helpful to differentiate between governing the Internet -- controlling its infrastructure, protocols, or evolution -- and governing use of the Internet. You could pick a hot topic from the FCC's docket, though, and some there are about Internet deployment, such as the free wireless proposal just abandoned. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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)

:'''Sure; you could take this topic a step further by looking at existing scholarship on the topic and/or the just-about-to-be-released report from the Palfrey Commission, chartered by 49 state Attorneys General to discuss protection of minors online. Given its Berkman Center connections, we'd have a good chance of getting the main players in that process to discuss. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T16:04:15Z

JZ: /* Local/national Regulation */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''It will be helpful to differentiate between governing the Internet -- controlling its infrastructure, protocols, or evolution -- and governing use of the Internet. You could pick a hot topic from the FCC's docket, though, and some there are about Internet deployment, such as the free wireless proposal just abandoned. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T16:04:05Z

JZ: /* Local/national Regulation */

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''It will be helpful to differentiate between governing the Internet -- controlling its infrastructure, protocols, or evolution -- and governing use of the Internet. You could pick a hot topic from the FCC's docket, though, and some there are about Internet deployment, such as the free wireless proposal just abandoned.

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T16:01:07Z

JZ:

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::'''Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T16:00:42Z

JZ:

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open-source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Internet can be considered a collection of servers, pipes, and users spread all over the world.

:'''How is this much like open source sw? (Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.) [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How does it keep working? One easy answer is that the United States (through actors public and private) just sort of gets its way.

:'''Unpack. What does it mean for US to get its way? Gov't, culture, people? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a satisfying answer descriptively or normatively, though.

:'''What was the question? "How does the Internet keep working?" Are there those who say the answer is "Because the US controls it?" [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With the rest of the world contributing more and more to the Internet as a whole, is it time for a change?

:'''Do you mean Internet protocols and infrastructure, or apps, or content, or ... ? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guests: Susan Crawford?

:'''She can certainly speak to the cluster of issues commonly called "Internet governance"! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

::An upstream question would be: What are the specific problems that Internent governance proposals are meaning to solve? [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::Sure, might be interesting to get to the bottom of the IGF. Milton Mueller at Syracuse could be a good guest for this. He has [http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/6/3142881.html strongly criticized] (though I might say not fully grasped) my own views on Internet governance and the IGF. [[User:JZ|JZ]] 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T15:53:51Z

JZ:

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T15:48:44Z

JZ:

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:'''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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?

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T15:48:31Z

JZ:

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:''You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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?

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T15:48:14Z

JZ:

'''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

Much like open-source software,

:You'll want to be clear about using "free" vs "open source," depending on what you mean and who your audience is! [[User:JZ|JZ]] 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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?

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

'''[[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?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Internet Governance and Regulation

2008-12-15T15:47:43Z

JZ:

The Future of Copyright and Entertainment

2008-12-08T15:14:42Z

JZ: New page: ''Topic owners:'' ''Joe, Miriam'' === Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music and other Performance Art === We are beginning to see more and ...

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

=== Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music and other Performance Art ===

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. In some instances, copyright is even receding as a battleground issue altogether. In this session, we would be exploring how these new avenues of music consumption & creation might affect the way we experience music in our day to day lives--and just what exactly copyright has to do with any of it. The following are a few examples of some points of tension.

First, we may consider the rise of alternative marketplaces for music. 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). We also find Radiohead using a tip jar for their latest release, where customers pay as little or as much as they deem appropriate.

Second, it has been said that iTunes is changing our musical culture from an "concept based" one to a "song based" one. The transition means that the album becomes less and less of a meaningful unit of creativity; consumers are more likely to think of the tracks as individual songs than as parts of a coherent whole. Music critics might follow suit. It's worth asking whether this trend will continue--does the move to digital media necessarily produce this result? The potential demise of the album provides a useful case study of how means of consumption and distribution affects how we conceptualize the music we experience.

Third, with the rise of peer-recommendation services and internet-radio stations that are driven by a listener's past interests, it's worth asking just where & how we'll be discovering new music in the future. When we are downloading individual songs rather than albums, and discovering those songs through automated services, are we likely to discover new artists to follow? Or does "the artist" as a predictor of our aesthetic taste begin to recede in importance?

''Some possible questions of the week:''

* In 5 years, where are we likely to be getting our music from?
* Are any of the models described above likely to succeed commercially?
* Are our methods of music consumption likely to have an impact on our methods of music production? Is this likely to have an affect on the sort of music available to us?
* How closely will we be following particular artist's careers? Is the rise of peer-recommendation services likely to decrease the importance of brand loyalty to an artist? With alternative indicators of whether we're likely to enjoy something, will we see fewer listeners buying the latest album? Does anyone even care about albums anymore?
* What affect will all of this have on our inclination and capacity to branch out in our tastes? For those that worry about internet echo chambers, should we be just as worried about an echo chamber for the arts?
* Just where does the recording industry fit in to all of this?
* How much does copyright have to do with the new strategies being developed for distributing music online? Where would changes in copyright law make the most difference? The least difference?

'''Possible Readings'''

* James Boyle on [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/130 mashups]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/arts/music/04radi.html Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget), N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 2007].
* Diane Zimmerman, ''Living Without Copyright in a Digital World'', 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1375 (2007).
* Michael W. Carroll, ''Whose Music Is It Anyway? How We Came to View Music as a Form of Property'', 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1405 (2004).

'''Possible Guests'''

* Radiohead (worth a shot, right?)
* Brian Burton, aka DJ Danger Mouse
* Girl Talk
* Jan Jannink (co-founder of imeem, formerly of Napster)
* James Boyle (Duke Law School & chair of Creative Commons)
* Terry Fisher (HLS & Noank Media)
* John Buckman (Magnatune Records)
* Downhill Battle

=== The Proliferation of Imagery Online ===

This topic is expansive, but there are three areas that are particularly interesting:

* Mainstream media and fan culture
* Changing expectations about privacy
* Sharing media internationally

Web 2.0 allows people to create and share audio visual works that borrow from mainstream media. The proliferation of images online presents new challenges to the copyright regime. Music and video is taken from digital sources and manipulated to create new works. These "Fanvids" are easy to distribute because they are digital media. Their creators thrive in online communities with email listservs and blogs. Or you can visit www.fanfiction.net for a massive library of fictional works the build on well established story lines from books, movies and tv shows. "As of the week ending Aug. 25, 2007, the site ranked in the 159th position of over 1 million websites, putting Fanfiction.net ahead of sites such as Apple.com" (quote from Time Magazine)

Although many of these works potentially infringe upon the original works, industry figures are looking to harness the free marketing...
* Marvel Studios head quoted saying “ I now consider [fans] filmmaking partners”
* CBS has promised to allow fans to post clips of shows and even “mashups” or simple fanvids on the internet
* Bravo has Video Mashups on its Project Runway website
The internet encourages semiotic democracy, but to what extent should we allow shared cultural references to be deconstruct by copyright infringers?

Social networking sites such as myspace.com, facebook.com and flickr.com feature many photographs that push the limits of people's privacy expectations. Lawsuits may proliferate, like Chang v. Virgin Mobile (complaint available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01767/171558/)
Given the speed and ease with which we can communicate with each other on the internet using words, images and sounds, how does our consumption of media change?

International art forms are now enjoyed almost instantaneously across borders, as unauthorized copies are posted on the internet. We all know about American cultural products exported abroad, but the internet also allows many interesting forms to be brought in, such as Japanese anime, subtitled by amateurs ("fansubbing" is explained further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub)

''' Possible Readings'''

* Sarah Trombley, Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 647 (2007)

* Sean Leonard, Celebrating Two Decades of Unlawful Progress: Fan Distribution, Proselytization Commons, and the Explosive Growth of Japanese Anime 12 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 189 (2005)

* IN THE FACE OF DANGER: FACIAL RECOGNITION AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY LAW (Harvard Law Review article, uploaded to site, but I cannot figure out how to link to it.)

'''Possible Guests'''

* Rebecca Tushnet
* reps from Mainstream Media to comment on ways to collaborate with/crush fan culture.
* Terry Fisher
* will think of more as soon as exams are over. :)

Syllabus

2008-12-08T15:14:19Z

JZ:

== The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ==
[[The Future of Copyright and Entertainment]]
== Old Laws/New Media ==

Matt Sanchez, Debbie Rosenbaum, Shubham Mukherjee

This topic concerns the tension that occurs when we attempt to apply old laws to new media and communications technologies (including the Internet). The discussions in this session should provide a useful legal perspective on the societal issues addressed in the sessions regarding music, news, and other communications media.

'''Tentative "questions of the week" '''
* How has new media affected traditional communications and media industries and challenged traditional law?
* How has traditional law challenged new media?
* 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?

'''Tentative ideas for topics'''
* Copyright law (e.g., recording industry's litigation campaign against filesharing) (including 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)
* Speech-related law (e.g., defamation, anonymous speech rights)
* Privacy laws

'''Possible guests'''
* Google Telecom Lawyer Rick Whitt
* Google Antitrust Lawyer Dana Wagner
* Berkman Center's David Ardia, who runs the Citizen Media Law Project
* Cary Sherman of RIAA
* Professor Charles Nesson
* Public Citizen Litigation Group Attorney Paul Alan Levy
* Electronic Frontier Foundation Attorney Fred Von Lohmann

'''Possible 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).

''' Other considerations'''
* TBD

== 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 ==
'''Presenters: [[dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''

* 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]])

== All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org ==
'''Presenters:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''

=== Precis ===

How to effectively design an online drive/event/project to get participation in your cause

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes
* www.zoosa.org
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]

=== Guest wish list ===
* Prof. Yochai Benkler
* Tom Steinberg
* Sean Parker and Joe Green, founders of Project Agape, the start-up that created Facebook Causes
* Joe Rospars, New Media Director, Obama for America (Elana)
* Ken Banks, FrontlineSMS (Elana)
* Sebastian Benthall, [http://topp.openplans.org/ TOPP]
* Joshua Gay, FSF
* Kathy Paur, [http://actblue.com ActBlue]

=== Readings ===

We have three types of readings for this session:

'''Historical''' resources that come directly from our guests and their experiences.

* Guests will be asked to email the class beforehand with a short version of the kinds of things they'd say in a speech to the class, so people know who they'd want to ask for advice during the workshop portion. (Rationale: The time we're together should be spent interacting, there's always plenty of time outside of class for reading.)
* Guests will also be asked to send the class a link to their favorite resource/article on their project, or something that has informed their own work on their project.

'''Techniques and tools''' resources, mainly business books that focus on corporate use of the social web, online communities and marketing, etc. This will be pages and chapters from books like this (used as examples, not a final list):

* [http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Social-Web-Customer-Communities/dp/0470124172 Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Groundswell-Winning-Transformed-Social-Technologies/dp/1422125009 Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Start-Ups-Entrepreneurs-Corporations-Communities/dp/0470107421 Smart Start-Ups: How Entrepreneurs and Corporations Can Profit by Starting Online Communities]

'''Theory''' on activism, focusing on cyberactivism. This will consist mainly of scholarly books and papers like the following (used as examples, not a final list):

* (Paper) ''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,'' by the law professor Seth Kreimer. It has some pretty interesting bits -- and some funny moments -- like refrences to John McCain's staff using digital activism in 2001 during his campaign around campaign finance reform. Elana has the PDF.
* (Selection from) ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers.
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/philanthropy_on_the_commons Philanthropy on the Commons]
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-copyrightlaw/benkler_3487.jsp Mining the wealth of networks with Yochai Benkler]
* [http://www.comnetwork.org/resources/brotherton_new_media_091608.pdf Foundations and New Media]
* [http://www.netsquared.org Netsquared]
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf Benkler: The Wealth of Networks]

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

* What makes online campaigning successful? What makes online fundraising successful? What makes online activism/mobilization successful? What makes online collaboration for good causes successful?
* What actually spurs people up the ladder of engagement or into offline activism and waht does not? Which online structures, tools, networks get people how high up the ladder? Which one's should you use for which "height"? What are their individual costs?
* Is there a generalizable model here? If yes, has this model different success factors from the business world?
* What are cutting-edge examples of successful campaigning/fundraising/mobilization/collaboration? How do they harness different channels and media (www, email, SMS, etc.)?

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

==== Session design ====

Our current idea for session design is structured as a workshop (and discussion afterwards). Each participant will spend the week working on a cause that they are personally interested in, applying the techniques from readings and class to their own project. Key components of this week:

* 2-3 '''readings''' will be sent out beforehand, selected from the above.
* A '''questionnaire''' will be sent out beforehand to all class participants so they can frame the most important aspects of their cause. (For instance: What are the aims of your cause? What technologies do you prefer to use while working on activism for your cause, and why? How many people do you want to mobilize? How deep should their involvement be?) Participants will use the questionnaire to write a very rough draft of a non-profit online participation project for their cause.
* The '''role of our guest experts''' will be to come in as workshop aides; it will be interesting to hear from them what they thinks the most important rules for success are. They'll get to give a short (<10min) intro speech.
* The session will kick off with a '''workshop''' where the students will work on their project. It should be an online project designed to raise and deepen involvement and/or awareness for their cause. For instance, they might contribute to the planning of a conference, create an email-blast marketing campaign, host a party that is heavily advertised online, create or spread viral media, compile statistics on online membership for their cause, etc.
* We will follow that with a '''debriefing''' to discuss how things went and the theories and best practices that apply.

==== Old discussion ====

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)

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

=== 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]]'''

Some more helpful material:

* A primer on the [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1134563_code183716.pdf?abstractid=1134563&mirid=1 legal status] of prediction markets.
* The CTFC wants to know if it should [http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/proposedrules/2008/e8-9981.html regulate] them.
* If they can be regulated, could they be [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6716/is_4_27/ai_n29450615/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 taxed] as well?
* Our very own Prof. Sunstein gives his comments on prediction markets and [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID621128_code249436.pdf?abstractid=604641&mirid=1 group deliberation].

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."

'''Some general and tentative questions'''

* To what extent should the government be engaged in the regulation of prediction markets; should it and how might it change current structures to be more accommodating?

* To what extent should government be involved in administering or using prediction markets (e.g., a la Hanson's suggestions)?

* For ethical or other reasons, should we be skeptical about using prediction markets for purposes such as predicting [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market/index.html terrorist attacks] and the like? What about for predicting regular crime (see [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 this proposal])?

* More generally, if we think prediction markets are a useful tool, and yet it seems clear that they generate a considerable amount of unease, can we think about why and how policymakers might respond? Can design of the markets (reducing inaccuracy, or reducing concerns about rewarding misbehavior that might crop up if we have terrorism or crime futures) solve these problems or are some more fundamental?

'''Some tentative guest ideas'''

* Michael Abramowicz
* Justin Wolfers
* Bo Cowgill, Hal Varian: Google prediction markets
* Robin Hanson

'''Possible Readings'''

* academic literature on prediction markets, either [http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/Predictionmarkets.pdf generally] or focusing on [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 particular] [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928896 applications]

* relevant chapters from Professor Sunstein's Infotopia

* Michael Abramowicz's book [http://www.amazon.com/Predictocracy-Market-Mechanisms-Private-Decision/dp/0300115997 Predictocracy]

'''Other ideas'''

One obvious thought is to see whether the class can play around with using prediction markets, though more thought needed on what we'd want to predict. Incentives for accurate predictions like t-shirts?

Will Harvard give us some small amount of money to invest for the semester? We could have an auction to determine whose investment ideas we use. The incentives would work so that you would only bid more to control the investment if you actually thought your investment idea would generate more net return to you (minus what you spent on the auction), despite it being divided up among the class.

== Anonymity and privacy ==
'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''', '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''', '''[[User:Jgruensp|Joshua]]'''

=== Title ===

OpenId and Internet Governance

=== Precis ===

* Internet Regulation (as it relates specifically to online safety and security)
* Privacy and anonymity as they relate to structures of control on the Internet

=== Guest wish list (if any) ===
* As an academic, you couldn't do better than Daniel Solove. If we do hone in on a very specific topic, though, we could go for someone with more specialized experience. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
* Although government is subject to all sorts of special legal provisos that the private sector doesn't have to manage, the privacy counsel at DHS, [http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/bio_1166549785058.shtm Hugo Teufel], is pretty [http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_einstein2.pdf on top of his game]. If we're looking for practitioners, [http://www.arnoldporter.com/attorneys.cfm?action=view&id=380 Ron Lee] of Arnold & Porter does work with private industry.
* If we do OpenID, options for guests might include [http://www.crunchbase.com/person/bill-washburn Bill Washburn] of the OpenID Foundation and [http://blog.unto.net/ DeWitt Clinton] of Google.
* Also, since Passport has foundered, Facebook Connect looks like the hot new thing on the proprietary side. Whoever runs that for Facebook would be a natural invite as well. (see Dan's links below (?))
* And I still think the potential for the mobile phone to become the heretofore mythical convergence device and thus to become a necessary adjunct to personal identity is worth talking over.

Perhaps a bloggingheads.tv-style video conference call between someone from an electronic privacy nonprofit and a representative from Microsoft or Facebook?

=== Readings ===
[http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann, Facebook and The Social Dyanmics of Privacy]

[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Solove, Daniel J. "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"]

=== Links ===
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/125/how-to-fix-the-web.html

http://developers.facebook.com/connect.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_connect_vs_open_id.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_connect_readies.php

http://chrissaad.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/facebook-connect-aka-hailstorm-20/

http://wiki.openid.net/Lobbying

http://planet.openid.net/

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

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

* 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)
*Creating a series of Privacy Certification Marks

== 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 a major paper: NYT, LA Times, Washington Post etc?
* someone from the [http://civic.mit.edu/ MIT Center for Future Civic Media]?

Possible readings:
* Columbia Journalism Review article: [http://www.cjr.org/feature/overload_1.php Overload!]- Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information
* The [http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf AP report (PDF)] mentioned in Overload!

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)

== Internet Governance & Regulation ==

Presenters: '''[[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

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?

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

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

Syllabus

2008-12-08T15:11:18Z

JZ: /* The Future of Copyright and Entertainment */

[[The Future of Copyright and Entertainment]]
== The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ==
''Topic owners:'' ''[[User:Jfishman|Joe]], [[User:Miriam|Miriam]]''

=== Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music and other Performance Art ===

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. In some instances, copyright is even receding as a battleground issue altogether. In this session, we would be exploring how these new avenues of music consumption & creation might affect the way we experience music in our day to day lives--and just what exactly copyright has to do with any of it. The following are a few examples of some points of tension.

First, we may consider the rise of alternative marketplaces for music. 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). We also find Radiohead using a tip jar for their latest release, where customers pay as little or as much as they deem appropriate.

Second, it has been said that iTunes is changing our musical culture from an "concept based" one to a "song based" one. The transition means that the album becomes less and less of a meaningful unit of creativity; consumers are more likely to think of the tracks as individual songs than as parts of a coherent whole. Music critics might follow suit. It's worth asking whether this trend will continue--does the move to digital media necessarily produce this result? The potential demise of the album provides a useful case study of how means of consumption and distribution affects how we conceptualize the music we experience.

Third, with the rise of peer-recommendation services and internet-radio stations that are driven by a listener's past interests, it's worth asking just where & how we'll be discovering new music in the future. When we are downloading individual songs rather than albums, and discovering those songs through automated services, are we likely to discover new artists to follow? Or does "the artist" as a predictor of our aesthetic taste begin to recede in importance?

''Some possible questions of the week:''

* In 5 years, where are we likely to be getting our music from?
* Are any of the models described above likely to succeed commercially?
* Are our methods of music consumption likely to have an impact on our methods of music production? Is this likely to have an affect on the sort of music available to us?
* How closely will we be following particular artist's careers? Is the rise of peer-recommendation services likely to decrease the importance of brand loyalty to an artist? With alternative indicators of whether we're likely to enjoy something, will we see fewer listeners buying the latest album? Does anyone even care about albums anymore?
* What affect will all of this have on our inclination and capacity to branch out in our tastes? For those that worry about internet echo chambers, should we be just as worried about an echo chamber for the arts?
* Just where does the recording industry fit in to all of this?
* How much does copyright have to do with the new strategies being developed for distributing music online? Where would changes in copyright law make the most difference? The least difference?

'''Possible Readings'''

* James Boyle on [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/130 mashups]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/arts/music/04radi.html Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget), N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 2007].
* Diane Zimmerman, ''Living Without Copyright in a Digital World'', 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1375 (2007).
* Michael W. Carroll, ''Whose Music Is It Anyway? How We Came to View Music as a Form of Property'', 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1405 (2004).

'''Possible Guests'''

* Radiohead (worth a shot, right?)
* Brian Burton, aka DJ Danger Mouse
* Girl Talk
* Jan Jannink (co-founder of imeem, formerly of Napster)
* James Boyle (Duke Law School & chair of Creative Commons)
* Terry Fisher (HLS & Noank Media)
* John Buckman (Magnatune Records)
* Downhill Battle

=== The Proliferation of Imagery Online ===

This topic is expansive, but there are three areas that are particularly interesting:

* Mainstream media and fan culture
* Changing expectations about privacy
* Sharing media internationally

Web 2.0 allows people to create and share audio visual works that borrow from mainstream media. The proliferation of images online presents new challenges to the copyright regime. Music and video is taken from digital sources and manipulated to create new works. These "Fanvids" are easy to distribute because they are digital media. Their creators thrive in online communities with email listservs and blogs. Or you can visit www.fanfiction.net for a massive library of fictional works the build on well established story lines from books, movies and tv shows. "As of the week ending Aug. 25, 2007, the site ranked in the 159th position of over 1 million websites, putting Fanfiction.net ahead of sites such as Apple.com" (quote from Time Magazine)

Although many of these works potentially infringe upon the original works, industry figures are looking to harness the free marketing...
* Marvel Studios head quoted saying “ I now consider [fans] filmmaking partners”
* CBS has promised to allow fans to post clips of shows and even “mashups” or simple fanvids on the internet
* Bravo has Video Mashups on its Project Runway website
The internet encourages semiotic democracy, but to what extent should we allow shared cultural references to be deconstruct by copyright infringers?

Social networking sites such as myspace.com, facebook.com and flickr.com feature many photographs that push the limits of people's privacy expectations. Lawsuits may proliferate, like Chang v. Virgin Mobile (complaint available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01767/171558/)
Given the speed and ease with which we can communicate with each other on the internet using words, images and sounds, how does our consumption of media change?

International art forms are now enjoyed almost instantaneously across borders, as unauthorized copies are posted on the internet. We all know about American cultural products exported abroad, but the internet also allows many interesting forms to be brought in, such as Japanese anime, subtitled by amateurs ("fansubbing" is explained further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub)

''' Possible Readings'''

* Sarah Trombley, Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 647 (2007)

* Sean Leonard, Celebrating Two Decades of Unlawful Progress: Fan Distribution, Proselytization Commons, and the Explosive Growth of Japanese Anime 12 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 189 (2005)

* IN THE FACE OF DANGER: FACIAL RECOGNITION AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY LAW (Harvard Law Review article, uploaded to site, but I cannot figure out how to link to it.)

'''Possible Guests'''

* Rebecca Tushnet
* reps from Mainstream Media to comment on ways to collaborate with/crush fan culture.
* Terry Fisher
* will think of more as soon as exams are over. :)

== Old Laws/New Media ==

Matt Sanchez, Debbie Rosenbaum, Shubham Mukherjee

This topic concerns the tension that occurs when we attempt to apply old laws to new media and communications technologies (including the Internet). The discussions in this session should provide a useful legal perspective on the societal issues addressed in the sessions regarding music, news, and other communications media.

'''Tentative "questions of the week" '''
* How has new media affected traditional communications and media industries and challenged traditional law?
* How has traditional law challenged new media?
* 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?

'''Tentative ideas for topics'''
* Copyright law (e.g., recording industry's litigation campaign against filesharing) (including 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)
* Speech-related law (e.g., defamation, anonymous speech rights)
* Privacy laws

'''Possible guests'''
* Google Telecom Lawyer Rick Whitt
* Google Antitrust Lawyer Dana Wagner
* Berkman Center's David Ardia, who runs the Citizen Media Law Project
* Cary Sherman of RIAA
* Professor Charles Nesson
* Public Citizen Litigation Group Attorney Paul Alan Levy
* Electronic Frontier Foundation Attorney Fred Von Lohmann

'''Possible 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).

''' Other considerations'''
* TBD

== 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 ==
'''Presenters: [[dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''

* 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]])

== All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org ==
'''Presenters:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''

=== Precis ===

How to effectively design an online drive/event/project to get participation in your cause

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes
* www.zoosa.org
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]

=== Guest wish list ===
* Prof. Yochai Benkler
* Tom Steinberg
* Sean Parker and Joe Green, founders of Project Agape, the start-up that created Facebook Causes
* Joe Rospars, New Media Director, Obama for America (Elana)
* Ken Banks, FrontlineSMS (Elana)
* Sebastian Benthall, [http://topp.openplans.org/ TOPP]
* Joshua Gay, FSF
* Kathy Paur, [http://actblue.com ActBlue]

=== Readings ===

We have three types of readings for this session:

'''Historical''' resources that come directly from our guests and their experiences.

* Guests will be asked to email the class beforehand with a short version of the kinds of things they'd say in a speech to the class, so people know who they'd want to ask for advice during the workshop portion. (Rationale: The time we're together should be spent interacting, there's always plenty of time outside of class for reading.)
* Guests will also be asked to send the class a link to their favorite resource/article on their project, or something that has informed their own work on their project.

'''Techniques and tools''' resources, mainly business books that focus on corporate use of the social web, online communities and marketing, etc. This will be pages and chapters from books like this (used as examples, not a final list):

* [http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Social-Web-Customer-Communities/dp/0470124172 Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Groundswell-Winning-Transformed-Social-Technologies/dp/1422125009 Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Start-Ups-Entrepreneurs-Corporations-Communities/dp/0470107421 Smart Start-Ups: How Entrepreneurs and Corporations Can Profit by Starting Online Communities]

'''Theory''' on activism, focusing on cyberactivism. This will consist mainly of scholarly books and papers like the following (used as examples, not a final list):

* (Paper) ''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,'' by the law professor Seth Kreimer. It has some pretty interesting bits -- and some funny moments -- like refrences to John McCain's staff using digital activism in 2001 during his campaign around campaign finance reform. Elana has the PDF.
* (Selection from) ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers.
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/philanthropy_on_the_commons Philanthropy on the Commons]
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-copyrightlaw/benkler_3487.jsp Mining the wealth of networks with Yochai Benkler]
* [http://www.comnetwork.org/resources/brotherton_new_media_091608.pdf Foundations and New Media]
* [http://www.netsquared.org Netsquared]
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf Benkler: The Wealth of Networks]

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

* What makes online campaigning successful? What makes online fundraising successful? What makes online activism/mobilization successful? What makes online collaboration for good causes successful?
* What actually spurs people up the ladder of engagement or into offline activism and waht does not? Which online structures, tools, networks get people how high up the ladder? Which one's should you use for which "height"? What are their individual costs?
* Is there a generalizable model here? If yes, has this model different success factors from the business world?
* What are cutting-edge examples of successful campaigning/fundraising/mobilization/collaboration? How do they harness different channels and media (www, email, SMS, etc.)?

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

==== Session design ====

Our current idea for session design is structured as a workshop (and discussion afterwards). Each participant will spend the week working on a cause that they are personally interested in, applying the techniques from readings and class to their own project. Key components of this week:

* 2-3 '''readings''' will be sent out beforehand, selected from the above.
* A '''questionnaire''' will be sent out beforehand to all class participants so they can frame the most important aspects of their cause. (For instance: What are the aims of your cause? What technologies do you prefer to use while working on activism for your cause, and why? How many people do you want to mobilize? How deep should their involvement be?) Participants will use the questionnaire to write a very rough draft of a non-profit online participation project for their cause.
* The '''role of our guest experts''' will be to come in as workshop aides; it will be interesting to hear from them what they thinks the most important rules for success are. They'll get to give a short (<10min) intro speech.
* The session will kick off with a '''workshop''' where the students will work on their project. It should be an online project designed to raise and deepen involvement and/or awareness for their cause. For instance, they might contribute to the planning of a conference, create an email-blast marketing campaign, host a party that is heavily advertised online, create or spread viral media, compile statistics on online membership for their cause, etc.
* We will follow that with a '''debriefing''' to discuss how things went and the theories and best practices that apply.

==== Old discussion ====

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)

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

=== 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]]'''

Some more helpful material:

* A primer on the [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1134563_code183716.pdf?abstractid=1134563&mirid=1 legal status] of prediction markets.
* The CTFC wants to know if it should [http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/proposedrules/2008/e8-9981.html regulate] them.
* If they can be regulated, could they be [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6716/is_4_27/ai_n29450615/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 taxed] as well?
* Our very own Prof. Sunstein gives his comments on prediction markets and [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID621128_code249436.pdf?abstractid=604641&mirid=1 group deliberation].

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."

'''Some general and tentative questions'''

* To what extent should the government be engaged in the regulation of prediction markets; should it and how might it change current structures to be more accommodating?

* To what extent should government be involved in administering or using prediction markets (e.g., a la Hanson's suggestions)?

* For ethical or other reasons, should we be skeptical about using prediction markets for purposes such as predicting [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market/index.html terrorist attacks] and the like? What about for predicting regular crime (see [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 this proposal])?

* More generally, if we think prediction markets are a useful tool, and yet it seems clear that they generate a considerable amount of unease, can we think about why and how policymakers might respond? Can design of the markets (reducing inaccuracy, or reducing concerns about rewarding misbehavior that might crop up if we have terrorism or crime futures) solve these problems or are some more fundamental?

'''Some tentative guest ideas'''

* Michael Abramowicz
* Justin Wolfers
* Bo Cowgill, Hal Varian: Google prediction markets
* Robin Hanson

'''Possible Readings'''

* academic literature on prediction markets, either [http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/Predictionmarkets.pdf generally] or focusing on [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 particular] [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928896 applications]

* relevant chapters from Professor Sunstein's Infotopia

* Michael Abramowicz's book [http://www.amazon.com/Predictocracy-Market-Mechanisms-Private-Decision/dp/0300115997 Predictocracy]

'''Other ideas'''

One obvious thought is to see whether the class can play around with using prediction markets, though more thought needed on what we'd want to predict. Incentives for accurate predictions like t-shirts?

Will Harvard give us some small amount of money to invest for the semester? We could have an auction to determine whose investment ideas we use. The incentives would work so that you would only bid more to control the investment if you actually thought your investment idea would generate more net return to you (minus what you spent on the auction), despite it being divided up among the class.

== Anonymity and privacy ==
'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''', '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''', '''[[User:Jgruensp|Joshua]]'''

=== Title ===

OpenId and Internet Governance

=== Precis ===

* Internet Regulation (as it relates specifically to online safety and security)
* Privacy and anonymity as they relate to structures of control on the Internet

=== Guest wish list (if any) ===
* As an academic, you couldn't do better than Daniel Solove. If we do hone in on a very specific topic, though, we could go for someone with more specialized experience. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
* Although government is subject to all sorts of special legal provisos that the private sector doesn't have to manage, the privacy counsel at DHS, [http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/bio_1166549785058.shtm Hugo Teufel], is pretty [http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_einstein2.pdf on top of his game]. If we're looking for practitioners, [http://www.arnoldporter.com/attorneys.cfm?action=view&id=380 Ron Lee] of Arnold & Porter does work with private industry.
* If we do OpenID, options for guests might include [http://www.crunchbase.com/person/bill-washburn Bill Washburn] of the OpenID Foundation and [http://blog.unto.net/ DeWitt Clinton] of Google.
* Also, since Passport has foundered, Facebook Connect looks like the hot new thing on the proprietary side. Whoever runs that for Facebook would be a natural invite as well. (see Dan's links below (?))
* And I still think the potential for the mobile phone to become the heretofore mythical convergence device and thus to become a necessary adjunct to personal identity is worth talking over.

Perhaps a bloggingheads.tv-style video conference call between someone from an electronic privacy nonprofit and a representative from Microsoft or Facebook?

=== Readings ===
[http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann, Facebook and The Social Dyanmics of Privacy]

[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Solove, Daniel J. "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"]

=== Links ===
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/125/how-to-fix-the-web.html

http://developers.facebook.com/connect.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_connect_vs_open_id.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_connect_readies.php

http://chrissaad.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/facebook-connect-aka-hailstorm-20/

http://wiki.openid.net/Lobbying

http://planet.openid.net/

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

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

* 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)
*Creating a series of Privacy Certification Marks

== 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 a major paper: NYT, LA Times, Washington Post etc?
* someone from the [http://civic.mit.edu/ MIT Center for Future Civic Media]?

Possible readings:
* Columbia Journalism Review article: [http://www.cjr.org/feature/overload_1.php Overload!]- Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information
* The [http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf AP report (PDF)] mentioned in Overload!

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)

== Internet Governance & Regulation ==

Presenters: '''[[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

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?

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

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

Syllabus

2008-12-08T15:10:52Z

JZ: /* The Future of Copyright and Entertainment */

== The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ==
''Topic owners:'' ''[[User:Jfishman|Joe]], [[User:Miriam|Miriam]]''

=== Changing trends in Consumption & Creation of Music and other Performance Art ===

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. In some instances, copyright is even receding as a battleground issue altogether. In this session, we would be exploring how these new avenues of music consumption & creation might affect the way we experience music in our day to day lives--and just what exactly copyright has to do with any of it. The following are a few examples of some points of tension.

First, we may consider the rise of alternative marketplaces for music. 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). We also find Radiohead using a tip jar for their latest release, where customers pay as little or as much as they deem appropriate.

Second, it has been said that iTunes is changing our musical culture from an "concept based" one to a "song based" one. The transition means that the album becomes less and less of a meaningful unit of creativity; consumers are more likely to think of the tracks as individual songs than as parts of a coherent whole. Music critics might follow suit. It's worth asking whether this trend will continue--does the move to digital media necessarily produce this result? The potential demise of the album provides a useful case study of how means of consumption and distribution affects how we conceptualize the music we experience.

Third, with the rise of peer-recommendation services and internet-radio stations that are driven by a listener's past interests, it's worth asking just where & how we'll be discovering new music in the future. When we are downloading individual songs rather than albums, and discovering those songs through automated services, are we likely to discover new artists to follow? Or does "the artist" as a predictor of our aesthetic taste begin to recede in importance?

''Some possible questions of the week:''

* In 5 years, where are we likely to be getting our music from?
* Are any of the models described above likely to succeed commercially?
* Are our methods of music consumption likely to have an impact on our methods of music production? Is this likely to have an affect on the sort of music available to us?
* How closely will we be following particular artist's careers? Is the rise of peer-recommendation services likely to decrease the importance of brand loyalty to an artist? With alternative indicators of whether we're likely to enjoy something, will we see fewer listeners buying the latest album? Does anyone even care about albums anymore?
* What affect will all of this have on our inclination and capacity to branch out in our tastes? For those that worry about internet echo chambers, should we be just as worried about an echo chamber for the arts?
* Just where does the recording industry fit in to all of this?
* How much does copyright have to do with the new strategies being developed for distributing music online? Where would changes in copyright law make the most difference? The least difference?

'''Possible Readings'''

* James Boyle on [http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/130 mashups]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/arts/music/04radi.html Radiohead Fans, Guided by Conscience (and Budget), N.Y. Times, Oct. 4, 2007].
* Diane Zimmerman, ''Living Without Copyright in a Digital World'', 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1375 (2007).
* Michael W. Carroll, ''Whose Music Is It Anyway? How We Came to View Music as a Form of Property'', 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1405 (2004).

'''Possible Guests'''

* Radiohead (worth a shot, right?)
* Brian Burton, aka DJ Danger Mouse
* Girl Talk
* Jan Jannink (co-founder of imeem, formerly of Napster)
* James Boyle (Duke Law School & chair of Creative Commons)
* Terry Fisher (HLS & Noank Media)
* John Buckman (Magnatune Records)
* Downhill Battle

=== The Proliferation of Imagery Online ===

This topic is expansive, but there are three areas that are particularly interesting:

* Mainstream media and fan culture
* Changing expectations about privacy
* Sharing media internationally

Web 2.0 allows people to create and share audio visual works that borrow from mainstream media. The proliferation of images online presents new challenges to the copyright regime. Music and video is taken from digital sources and manipulated to create new works. These "Fanvids" are easy to distribute because they are digital media. Their creators thrive in online communities with email listservs and blogs. Or you can visit www.fanfiction.net for a massive library of fictional works the build on well established story lines from books, movies and tv shows. "As of the week ending Aug. 25, 2007, the site ranked in the 159th position of over 1 million websites, putting Fanfiction.net ahead of sites such as Apple.com" (quote from Time Magazine)

Although many of these works potentially infringe upon the original works, industry figures are looking to harness the free marketing...
* Marvel Studios head quoted saying “ I now consider [fans] filmmaking partners”
* CBS has promised to allow fans to post clips of shows and even “mashups” or simple fanvids on the internet
* Bravo has Video Mashups on its Project Runway website
The internet encourages semiotic democracy, but to what extent should we allow shared cultural references to be deconstruct by copyright infringers?

Social networking sites such as myspace.com, facebook.com and flickr.com feature many photographs that push the limits of people's privacy expectations. Lawsuits may proliferate, like Chang v. Virgin Mobile (complaint available here http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01767/171558/)
Given the speed and ease with which we can communicate with each other on the internet using words, images and sounds, how does our consumption of media change?

International art forms are now enjoyed almost instantaneously across borders, as unauthorized copies are posted on the internet. We all know about American cultural products exported abroad, but the internet also allows many interesting forms to be brought in, such as Japanese anime, subtitled by amateurs ("fansubbing" is explained further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub)

''' Possible Readings'''

* Sarah Trombley, Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 647 (2007)

* Sean Leonard, Celebrating Two Decades of Unlawful Progress: Fan Distribution, Proselytization Commons, and the Explosive Growth of Japanese Anime 12 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 189 (2005)

* IN THE FACE OF DANGER: FACIAL RECOGNITION AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY LAW (Harvard Law Review article, uploaded to site, but I cannot figure out how to link to it.)

'''Possible Guests'''

* Rebecca Tushnet
* reps from Mainstream Media to comment on ways to collaborate with/crush fan culture.
* Terry Fisher
* will think of more as soon as exams are over. :)

== Old Laws/New Media ==

Matt Sanchez, Debbie Rosenbaum, Shubham Mukherjee

This topic concerns the tension that occurs when we attempt to apply old laws to new media and communications technologies (including the Internet). The discussions in this session should provide a useful legal perspective on the societal issues addressed in the sessions regarding music, news, and other communications media.

'''Tentative "questions of the week" '''
* How has new media affected traditional communications and media industries and challenged traditional law?
* How has traditional law challenged new media?
* 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?

'''Tentative ideas for topics'''
* Copyright law (e.g., recording industry's litigation campaign against filesharing) (including 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)
* Speech-related law (e.g., defamation, anonymous speech rights)
* Privacy laws

'''Possible guests'''
* Google Telecom Lawyer Rick Whitt
* Google Antitrust Lawyer Dana Wagner
* Berkman Center's David Ardia, who runs the Citizen Media Law Project
* Cary Sherman of RIAA
* Professor Charles Nesson
* Public Citizen Litigation Group Attorney Paul Alan Levy
* Electronic Frontier Foundation Attorney Fred Von Lohmann

'''Possible 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).

''' Other considerations'''
* TBD

== 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 ==
'''Presenters: [[dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''

* 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]])

== All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org ==
'''Presenters:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''

=== Precis ===

How to effectively design an online drive/event/project to get participation in your cause

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes
* www.zoosa.org
* [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]

=== Guest wish list ===
* Prof. Yochai Benkler
* Tom Steinberg
* Sean Parker and Joe Green, founders of Project Agape, the start-up that created Facebook Causes
* Joe Rospars, New Media Director, Obama for America (Elana)
* Ken Banks, FrontlineSMS (Elana)
* Sebastian Benthall, [http://topp.openplans.org/ TOPP]
* Joshua Gay, FSF
* Kathy Paur, [http://actblue.com ActBlue]

=== Readings ===

We have three types of readings for this session:

'''Historical''' resources that come directly from our guests and their experiences.

* Guests will be asked to email the class beforehand with a short version of the kinds of things they'd say in a speech to the class, so people know who they'd want to ask for advice during the workshop portion. (Rationale: The time we're together should be spent interacting, there's always plenty of time outside of class for reading.)
* Guests will also be asked to send the class a link to their favorite resource/article on their project, or something that has informed their own work on their project.

'''Techniques and tools''' resources, mainly business books that focus on corporate use of the social web, online communities and marketing, etc. This will be pages and chapters from books like this (used as examples, not a final list):

* [http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Social-Web-Customer-Communities/dp/0470124172 Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Groundswell-Winning-Transformed-Social-Technologies/dp/1422125009 Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies]
* [http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Start-Ups-Entrepreneurs-Corporations-Communities/dp/0470107421 Smart Start-Ups: How Entrepreneurs and Corporations Can Profit by Starting Online Communities]

'''Theory''' on activism, focusing on cyberactivism. This will consist mainly of scholarly books and papers like the following (used as examples, not a final list):

* (Paper) ''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,'' by the law professor Seth Kreimer. It has some pretty interesting bits -- and some funny moments -- like refrences to John McCain's staff using digital activism in 2001 during his campaign around campaign finance reform. Elana has the PDF.
* (Selection from) ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers.
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/philanthropy_on_the_commons Philanthropy on the Commons]
* [http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-copyrightlaw/benkler_3487.jsp Mining the wealth of networks with Yochai Benkler]
* [http://www.comnetwork.org/resources/brotherton_new_media_091608.pdf Foundations and New Media]
* [http://www.netsquared.org Netsquared]
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf Benkler: The Wealth of Networks]

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

* What makes online campaigning successful? What makes online fundraising successful? What makes online activism/mobilization successful? What makes online collaboration for good causes successful?
* What actually spurs people up the ladder of engagement or into offline activism and waht does not? Which online structures, tools, networks get people how high up the ladder? Which one's should you use for which "height"? What are their individual costs?
* Is there a generalizable model here? If yes, has this model different success factors from the business world?
* What are cutting-edge examples of successful campaigning/fundraising/mobilization/collaboration? How do they harness different channels and media (www, email, SMS, etc.)?

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

==== Session design ====

Our current idea for session design is structured as a workshop (and discussion afterwards). Each participant will spend the week working on a cause that they are personally interested in, applying the techniques from readings and class to their own project. Key components of this week:

* 2-3 '''readings''' will be sent out beforehand, selected from the above.
* A '''questionnaire''' will be sent out beforehand to all class participants so they can frame the most important aspects of their cause. (For instance: What are the aims of your cause? What technologies do you prefer to use while working on activism for your cause, and why? How many people do you want to mobilize? How deep should their involvement be?) Participants will use the questionnaire to write a very rough draft of a non-profit online participation project for their cause.
* The '''role of our guest experts''' will be to come in as workshop aides; it will be interesting to hear from them what they thinks the most important rules for success are. They'll get to give a short (<10min) intro speech.
* The session will kick off with a '''workshop''' where the students will work on their project. It should be an online project designed to raise and deepen involvement and/or awareness for their cause. For instance, they might contribute to the planning of a conference, create an email-blast marketing campaign, host a party that is heavily advertised online, create or spread viral media, compile statistics on online membership for their cause, etc.
* We will follow that with a '''debriefing''' to discuss how things went and the theories and best practices that apply.

==== Old discussion ====

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)

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

=== 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]]'''

Some more helpful material:

* A primer on the [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1134563_code183716.pdf?abstractid=1134563&mirid=1 legal status] of prediction markets.
* The CTFC wants to know if it should [http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/proposedrules/2008/e8-9981.html regulate] them.
* If they can be regulated, could they be [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6716/is_4_27/ai_n29450615/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 taxed] as well?
* Our very own Prof. Sunstein gives his comments on prediction markets and [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID621128_code249436.pdf?abstractid=604641&mirid=1 group deliberation].

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."

'''Some general and tentative questions'''

* To what extent should the government be engaged in the regulation of prediction markets; should it and how might it change current structures to be more accommodating?

* To what extent should government be involved in administering or using prediction markets (e.g., a la Hanson's suggestions)?

* For ethical or other reasons, should we be skeptical about using prediction markets for purposes such as predicting [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market/index.html terrorist attacks] and the like? What about for predicting regular crime (see [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 this proposal])?

* More generally, if we think prediction markets are a useful tool, and yet it seems clear that they generate a considerable amount of unease, can we think about why and how policymakers might respond? Can design of the markets (reducing inaccuracy, or reducing concerns about rewarding misbehavior that might crop up if we have terrorism or crime futures) solve these problems or are some more fundamental?

'''Some tentative guest ideas'''

* Michael Abramowicz
* Justin Wolfers
* Bo Cowgill, Hal Varian: Google prediction markets
* Robin Hanson

'''Possible Readings'''

* academic literature on prediction markets, either [http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/Predictionmarkets.pdf generally] or focusing on [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1118931 particular] [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928896 applications]

* relevant chapters from Professor Sunstein's Infotopia

* Michael Abramowicz's book [http://www.amazon.com/Predictocracy-Market-Mechanisms-Private-Decision/dp/0300115997 Predictocracy]

'''Other ideas'''

One obvious thought is to see whether the class can play around with using prediction markets, though more thought needed on what we'd want to predict. Incentives for accurate predictions like t-shirts?

Will Harvard give us some small amount of money to invest for the semester? We could have an auction to determine whose investment ideas we use. The incentives would work so that you would only bid more to control the investment if you actually thought your investment idea would generate more net return to you (minus what you spent on the auction), despite it being divided up among the class.

== Anonymity and privacy ==
'''[[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''', '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''', '''[[User:Jgruensp|Joshua]]'''

=== Title ===

OpenId and Internet Governance

=== Precis ===

* Internet Regulation (as it relates specifically to online safety and security)
* Privacy and anonymity as they relate to structures of control on the Internet

=== Guest wish list (if any) ===
* As an academic, you couldn't do better than Daniel Solove. If we do hone in on a very specific topic, though, we could go for someone with more specialized experience. [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]] 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
* Although government is subject to all sorts of special legal provisos that the private sector doesn't have to manage, the privacy counsel at DHS, [http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/bio_1166549785058.shtm Hugo Teufel], is pretty [http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_einstein2.pdf on top of his game]. If we're looking for practitioners, [http://www.arnoldporter.com/attorneys.cfm?action=view&id=380 Ron Lee] of Arnold & Porter does work with private industry.
* If we do OpenID, options for guests might include [http://www.crunchbase.com/person/bill-washburn Bill Washburn] of the OpenID Foundation and [http://blog.unto.net/ DeWitt Clinton] of Google.
* Also, since Passport has foundered, Facebook Connect looks like the hot new thing on the proprietary side. Whoever runs that for Facebook would be a natural invite as well. (see Dan's links below (?))
* And I still think the potential for the mobile phone to become the heretofore mythical convergence device and thus to become a necessary adjunct to personal identity is worth talking over.

Perhaps a bloggingheads.tv-style video conference call between someone from an electronic privacy nonprofit and a representative from Microsoft or Facebook?

=== Readings ===
[http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=james_grimmelmann James Grimmelmann, Facebook and The Social Dyanmics of Privacy]

[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Solove, Daniel J. "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy"]

=== Links ===
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/125/how-to-fix-the-web.html

http://developers.facebook.com/connect.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_connect_vs_open_id.php

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_connect_readies.php

http://chrissaad.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/facebook-connect-aka-hailstorm-20/

http://wiki.openid.net/Lobbying

http://planet.openid.net/

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

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

* 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)
*Creating a series of Privacy Certification Marks

== 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 a major paper: NYT, LA Times, Washington Post etc?
* someone from the [http://civic.mit.edu/ MIT Center for Future Civic Media]?

Possible readings:
* Columbia Journalism Review article: [http://www.cjr.org/feature/overload_1.php Overload!]- Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information
* The [http://www.ap.org/newmodel.pdf AP report (PDF)] mentioned in Overload!

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)

== Internet Governance & Regulation ==

Presenters: '''[[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''

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?

Some questions:
:What are the options for internet governance? An ad-hoc system, or something more formalized? What should the regulations cover - everything or only the vital areas, such as cybercrime and technical standards? Should it be local or international in scope? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== International Regulation ===
*The UN's [http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html World Summit On the Information Society] has come up with the [http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/aboutigf Internet Governance Forum] to help tackle some of these issues - is this a good idea?

:Possible reading: [http://publius.cc/2008/12/02/internet-governance-under-the-un-part-1/ The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN] - a series of three essays recently published on the Berkman Center's Publius Project.

:Possible speakers: staff members of the IGF? --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 18:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

=== Local/national Regulation ===
*Efforts by the FCC - in conjunction with and separate from the UN efforts.

:Possible speakers: Kevin Martin --[[User:AMehra|AMehra]] 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

=== Rights of Minors ===

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.

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

Main Page

2008-12-04T23:27:30Z

JZ:

{{TOCright}}

== Introduction ==

This is the course wiki for the Spring 2009 Harvard Law School seminar [http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/courses/2008-09/?id=6444 The Internet: Issues at the Frontiers], LAW-99045A (abbreviated name: iif). It is taught by Professors Cass Sunstein and Jonathan Zittrain and meets Mondays from 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM.

Course description:

''This seminar explores frontiers question involving the Internet. Anticipated issues involve innovation, copyright, new uses of the wiki form, prediction markets, democratic polarization, and collective intelligence. Students will be expected to participate actively in innovative course design, and we might attempt to involve numerous people all over the world in the course through the Internet.''

== Schedule ==

Unless otherwise indicated, dates given are for normal class meetings from 5-7PM on Monday nights.

* [[2008-11-21]] Optional wiki tutorial
* [[2008-11-24]] Monday 12-1pm (class)
* [[2008-12-01]] Monday 12-1pm (class)
* ''TBA'' ([[Tech demo]])

== Resources ==

* [[Syllabus]]
* [[Tools]]
* [[Topics]]
* [[Readings]]
* [[People]]
* [[Links]]

Topics

2008-12-02T00:02:31Z

JZ: /* Officially Proposed Topics */

= 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

=== Cooperation ===
* Benkler; pledgebank + Tom Steinberg

=== Anonymity and privacy ===
* Facebook + google people?

== Future of news ==
* Values at stake beyond what markets appear to sustain?

== Internet + Environment ==
* Peter Thiel, John Doerr, Google people

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==
* Eszter Hargitaii

== The Internet and Publication ==
'''Presenters: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]] (maybe)'''

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 recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

==== 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)

==== 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)

=== Possible Guests ===
* Google book digitization 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]]'''

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]]'''

When does it work, when does it not? and why?

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes

People:
* Prof. Yochai Benkler

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)

== 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?

=== 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?

== 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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

== 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 ===

=== 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]] (possibly)'''

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... ===

"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)

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 ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''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 ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== 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)

Topics

2008-12-02T00:01:56Z

JZ: /* Topics put forward today (please merge as appropriate with ones below or vice verse) */

= 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

== Cooperation ==
* Benkler; pledgebank + Tom Steinberg

== Anonymity and privacy ==
* Facebook + google people?

== Future of news ==
* Values at stake beyond what markets appear to sustain?

== Internet + Environment ==
* Peter Thiel, John Doerr, Google people

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==
* Eszter Hargitaii

== The Internet and Publication ==
'''Presenters: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]] (maybe)'''

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 recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

==== 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)

==== 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)

=== Possible Guests ===
* Google book digitization 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]]'''

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]]'''

When does it work, when does it not? and why?

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes

People:
* Prof. Yochai Benkler

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)

== 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?

=== 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?

== 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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

== 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 ===

=== 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]] (possibly)'''

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... ===

"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)

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 ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''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 ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== 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)

Topics

2008-12-02T00:01:35Z

JZ:

= 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 verse) ==

== 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

== Cooperation ==
* Benkler; pledgebank + Tom Steinberg

== Anonymity and privacy ==
* Facebook + google people?

== Future of news ==
* Values at stake beyond what markets appear to sustain?

== Internet + Environment ==
* Peter Thiel, John Doerr, Google people

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==
* Eszter Hargitaii

== The Internet and Publication ==
'''Presenters: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]] (maybe)'''

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 recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

==== 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)

==== 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)

=== Possible Guests ===
* Google book digitization 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]]'''

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]]'''

When does it work, when does it not? and why?

Examples:
* Pledgebank
* Facebook Causes

People:
* Prof. Yochai Benkler

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)

== 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?

=== 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?

== 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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

== 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 ===

=== 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]] (possibly)'''

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... ===

"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)

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 ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''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 ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== 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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:52:15Z

JZ: /* Topic Guidance */

= 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

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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]])

=== 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

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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?

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

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)

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:36:42Z

JZ: /* Deliberative Polling Online */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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]])

=== 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

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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?

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:34:48Z

JZ: /* Deliberative Polling Online */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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]])

=== 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].

* Jim Fishkin

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:32:31Z

JZ: /* Free and Open Source Software */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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)

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:30:31Z

JZ: /* Free and Open Source Software */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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?)

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:28:28Z

JZ: /* Free and Open Source Software */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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") -- 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?

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:27:34Z

JZ: /* Free and Open Source Software */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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)

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:25:57Z

JZ: /* Free and Open Source Software */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:24:50Z

JZ: /* Free and Open Source Software */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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 ?

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:23:43Z

JZ: /* Open Source Software */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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]])

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:22:27Z

JZ: /* Unconferences */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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

=== 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.

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:21:31Z

JZ: /* Interactive Education */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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.)

=== 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.

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:19:21Z

JZ: /* Prediction Markets / Futarchy */

= 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)

= 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 ==

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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?

=== 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.)

=== 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.

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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?

=== Internet and Power ===

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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)

Topics

2008-12-01T17:18:22Z

JZ: /* The Internet as a Social and Economic Tool Today */

= 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)

= 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 Walter Powell.

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

=== Prediction Markets / Futarchy ===

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

=== 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?

=== 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.)

=== 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.

=== 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].

=== Collaborative 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])

=== 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)

=== 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)

=== 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".

=== Peer-to-Patent ===

See http://www.peertopatent.org/

=== Systran ===

== Implications of Internet Tools of the Future ==

=== The Internet & The Dilemma of Copyrighted Digital Music ===
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?

=== 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?

=== 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 ===

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

=== 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... ===

"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)

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

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?

=== The Future of News ===

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? Ultimately, what is the future for “old 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)

=== Free Speech ===

==== Rights of Minors ====

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 =====

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.
--[[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 =====

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

===== Online Activism =====

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 =====

''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)

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

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.

=== Old Laws/New Media ===
Presenters: Shubham Mukherjee, Debbie Rosenbaum, and Matt Sanchez

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.

'''Images online'''

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

copyright and privacy issues regarding images on social networking sites

== The Internet and Societal Inequity ==

=== 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?

=== Internet and Power ===

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 ===

=== 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)

== New Legal Issues Raised by the Internet ==

=== Net Neutrality ===

=== Chillingeffects.org ===

And other, similar layman-focused legal projects

=== Google Book Search ===

What does the recent settlement between Google and American publishers regarding online accessibility of digitalized books mean? Many have hailed it for both improving universal access to knowledge and avoiding a judicial resolution that might have exposed antiquated aspects of US copyright law. But there may also be some troubling aspects of having access to so much content controlled by a single company. Should government intervene in any way to regulate such access?

From a regulatory perspective, there is also a question as to whether Google Book Search should be treated as a public or private entity, or whether such a distinction is even applicable (or does much work) in the internet context. Many of Google's library partners are public universities (e.g. Universities of California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- see http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html), though Google is of course private. And does Google Book Search's laudable mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/) mean we should shy away from regulation, or should we be skeptical of such claims by a large for-profit corporation.

== The Internet as a "Place" ==

=== Internet Governance ===

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?

== Internet/network Security ==

=== Internet Dependency (What if someone somehow takes down the net?) ===

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 ===

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 ===

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)