Pre-class Discussion for Jan 18: Difference between revisions

From Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control Course Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:


* I think it would be a mistake to take this declaration too literally, much like Barlow's earlier appearance in the material related to copyright (i.e., bands should all tour for their revenue and not worry about piracy). Nonetheless, I'll take its argument literally:
* I think it would be a mistake to take this declaration too literally, much like Barlow's earlier appearance in the material related to copyright (i.e., bands should all tour for their revenue and not worry about piracy). Nonetheless, I'll take its argument literally:
** Barlow consents to government control over our bodies in the physical world, but not in cyberspace, "Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live." Is this a good justification for cyberspace being entirely free from real-world governments?  Cyberspace might not be a place where bodies live, but what goes on there (e.g., child pornography) can have very real effects IRL. So then it becomes a sort of jurisdiction question: should real-world institutions ever have jurisdiction over a cyber-event? Barlow says no, but I would argue the answer is yes when the actions in cyberspace have directed effects at that other jurisdiction, the real world.
** Barlow consents to government control over our bodies in the physical world, but not in cyberspace, "Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live." Is this a good justification for cyberspace being entirely free from real-world governments?  Cyberspace might not be a place where bodies live, but what goes on there (e.g., child pornography) can have very real effects IRL. So then it becomes a sort of jurisdiction question: should real-world institutions ever have jurisdiction over a cyber-event? Barlow says no, but I would argue the answer is yes when the actions in cyberspace have directed effects at that other jurisdiction, the real world. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 22:38, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 23:38, 17 January 2008

Zittrain, The Future of the Internet, Conclusion

Frank Bajak, Laptop project enlivens Peruvian village

For those interested, I found a link on YouTube that shows the laptop and explains its use. OLPC One Laptop per Child KStanfield 20:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

  • I had the opportunity to experiment with an XO during a class on Science, Technology and Public Policy last semester. Kenyan-born Calestous Juma, the Director of Science, Technology and Innovation at the Kennedy School's Belfer Center was a guest speaker and he brought in an XO laptop for everyone to try out. Prof. Juma has devoted his professional career to sustainable development in the 3rd world and is a member of the board developing the XO's software. If you're interested in learning more about this impressive man, see the rather chatty Guardian story about Prof. Juma For Juma's thoughts on the problems of marketing the XO in Africa see Business Daily Africa article --Tseiver 21:51, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  • Here's a video review of the XO from a NY Times Technology writer. It shows its capabilities in more detail - and better resolution - than the item cited above by KStanfield. See NY Times XO review Yet another clip has a developer talking about it at a tech conference. See XO at tech fair --Tseiver 22:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  • One last video reference. This one is the slickest, produced artfully by the Red Hat development team for the XO. Quite informative. See Red Hat on XO The clip even ends with a Creative Commons message. --Tseiver 22:30, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Stecklow & Bandler, A Little Laptop With Big Ambitions

Link to the 60 minutes piece referenced in the article.

Palfrey & Gasser, Born Digital (Optional)

John Perry Barlow A Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace

  • Apparently Barlow has tempered his optimism regarding cyberspace becoming a sort of left-libertarian utopia. See towards the bottom of this 2004 interview in Reason here. Saying of his earlier writing on cyberspace and presumably this declaration in particular, "We all get older and smarter." WillM 13:48, 17 January 2008 (EST)
  • I think it would be a mistake to take this declaration too literally, much like Barlow's earlier appearance in the material related to copyright (i.e., bands should all tour for their revenue and not worry about piracy). Nonetheless, I'll take its argument literally:
    • Barlow consents to government control over our bodies in the physical world, but not in cyberspace, "Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live." Is this a good justification for cyberspace being entirely free from real-world governments? Cyberspace might not be a place where bodies live, but what goes on there (e.g., child pornography) can have very real effects IRL. So then it becomes a sort of jurisdiction question: should real-world institutions ever have jurisdiction over a cyber-event? Barlow says no, but I would argue the answer is yes when the actions in cyberspace have directed effects at that other jurisdiction, the real world. WillM 22:38, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/ipc/?title=Pre-class_Discussion_for_Jan_18&oldid=2765"