Pre-class Discussion for Jan 17

• If your copy of Wisdom of Crowds, Chapter 1, has an illegible page 10 or page 11, try the Amazon Online Reader for the hardcover edition. I searched for a phrase on page 10 and read just those two pages online. Jumpingdeeps 21:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9, pp. 221-234

• I thought ReputationDefender services was a good idea, so looked online to find some more information. It was interesting to see one of AutoAdmit's responses to the ReputationDefenders. I am not sure how much of what Mr. Cohen asserts is true, however, it addresses cyber-harrassment and makes a proposal to ReputationDefender. KStanfield 22:29, 16 January 2008 (EST)

• Perhaps an additional method of saving some shred of the privacy idea, could be to create a new form of privilege, or rule of evidence, to prohibit introducing evidence of online activity obtained from tracking by ISPs or search engines. While this obviously wouldn't do much to truly protect privacy, in the sense that others, including the government and law enforcement, could still obtain this information. But, it would at least some semblance of privacy that at least internet activity couldn't be used against you in court. This might at least lessen the sort of Big Brother concerns. The argument against a kind of privilege, however, is that other forms of privilege are designed to encourage some kind of other desirable activity, such as talking to your attorney, whereas this privilege seems that it would only encourage illegal activity on the internet. --Kgrose 00:13, 17 January 2008 (EST)

• The privilege idea, while lessening Big Brother concerns, does nothing in the private sector. Privacy can still be invaded by online tracking or through various other means. One's reputation could still be destroyed by an unfortunate moment in public. I agree with the idea that this will likely result in such moments becoming of considerably less importance in the future as society gets used to this and it becomes even more widespread. The problem, however, is that doesn't protect those of us that are growing up in this era, who have to deal with potential employers that aren't used to the technology yet, but are exposed to it. I was specifically reminded of the warning a group of us received from, I believe, Dean Cosgrove, at a Bar Exam info session last semester (as many of you probably received as well). Basically the idea was that we need to be wary of what we have on our Facebook and MySpace pages because the state bar will sometimes view them in evaluating whether you have good moral character. Needless to say, I think many found this revelation somewhat disturbing. State bars could certainly also do a Google search or look at Youtube clips if an applicant's name was attached. It seems incredibly unfair to perhaps prevent an individual from entering their career due to some prior indiscretion. While in the future, state bars may understand this problem and ignore isolated incidents, it certainly doesn't solve the problem for current students. Do others agree that this is a serious problem? If so, any ideas for solutions? --Kgrose 00:13, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Lior Strahilevitz, 'How's My Driving?' for Everyone (and Everything?)

• As noted in my previous post when Prof. Zittrain discussed "How's My Driving," I am skeptical of using this reputation system for all non-commercial vehicles. I believe that it is a great program in the sense that it may reduce accidents, decrease aggressive driving, and create more courteous drivers. However, I am still not sold on the idea. Although we were not given the article in its entirety, I still have problems with abusive behavior, over-reporting of negative behavior (a concern mentioned by another student in the previous post), and multiple point deductions for one act. Abusive behavior and over-reporting were mentioned in the previous posts, so I won't mention it here. I am least concerned about the multiple reporting for the same act, since I believe there are possible methods of correction. Another point in "How's My Driving" that concerned me was the reporting for non-illegal behavior. Prof. Strahilevitz specifically states that "...illegal driving behavior annoys research subjects much less than various hostile gestures and discourtesy on roadway" (FN 123). Should someone receive point deductions for not being a nice person? Although I do not condone discourteous behavior and think that eliminating aggressive driving is a positive, why should we force people to pay fines for being discourteous if they did not break the law? It's possible that such behavior would not lead to point deductions and therefore would not effect the drivers, but then what would discourage this behavior? I do believe this system could ultimately work if applied correctly. However, I would like to see more studies before even playing with the idea of its implementation. Reputation systems may work on e-Bay and in other contexts. Will it really work with non-commercial vehicles? Even if there are positive results for commercial vehicles, installation of technological devices will make it much easier for people to report. Thus, the possibility of abuse is much greater. KStanfield 22:15, 16 January 2008 (EST)

• Although I think this type of reputation system does work well online in certain instances (like eBay), I am very concerned with the potential effects of a "How's My Driving?" system being implemented. Logistical difficulties aside, I think the more fundamental question is whether we as a society really want to start a precedent in which people report on each other? Even if it’s not required and only certain people do, doesn’t this create a cultural norm that we should be hesitant of? Anna 22:24, 16 January 2008 (EST)

• I agree with Anna that there are some serious cultural norm issues. How often do people tell their kids not to be a tattle tale? And now we're thinking about implementing it in widespread fashion to solve bad behavior on the roads and on the internet? One particular way, however, in which I thought online ratings could make sense and do a lot to stop the so-called bad bits, is a rating attached to any IP address from which you download a file. This way, before you download a file that could be a potential virus, you can check that person's rating and even know if they have ever sent a virus before. I liked the informational asymmetry argument posed by Strahilevitz and it would apply here as well. In downloading bad files, the problem is often that we don't know the sender. A rating system would correct that to some extent. --Kgrose 00:33, 17 January 2008 (EST)

James Suroweicki, Wisdom of Crowds, Chapter 1

• Does Suroweicki ignore the dark side of crowds? In particular, in the Kathy Sierra incident, much of the blame went to 'mob' mentality. What is the difference between a 'mob' and a wise crowd? Is it based on context? Is the difference that the wise crowds Surowiecki describes work in isolation while 'mobs' act together? Dankahn 01:07, 17 January 2008 (EST)
• The Federalist Papers explain how the U.S. government is structured to restrain the majority will from being imposed too quickly. If such against popular 'passions' are valuable in the area of government structure, in what contexts are such checks and balances wise, and in which do they inhibit relying on the wisdom of crowds? Dankahn 01:07, 17 January 2008 (EST)
• Does Suroweicki ignore the emerging literature on systematic biases in human thought? Psychologists, economists, and biologists such as Kahneman and Tversky have developed with increasing sophistication insight into common cognitive biases that pervade human thought. [1] In situations in which cognitive bias is likely, isn't relying on crowds unwise? Would it not be better to rely on individual experts, trained to avoid common biases? Dankahn 01:07, 17 January 2008 (EST)
• Note an intersting story about potentially unethical uses of the wisdom of crowds. In 2003, DARPA, an arm of the Pentagon (that happens to have a big connection to the history of the Internet Arpanet on Wikipedia) was found to have a plan to develop a prediction market for terrorism attacks. A public outcry developed, and the plan was cancelled. Does the public outcry, ironically, illustrate the lack of wisdom of crowds? Did political outcry kill what could have been an effective means of predicting and preventing future terrorist attacks? Or does the offensiveness of allowing gamblers to profit off of terrorist attacks outweigh the potential benefit? Dankahn 01:07, 17 January 2008 (EST)