Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

User:Oscar.howell

2024-08-21T14:21:50Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1714521600

Name: Oscar Howell

Location: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City Mexico City]

e-mail: howell at fas dot harvard dot edu

'''Current projects'''

* Just beginning a wiki for rural communities: [http://www.brechas.org www.brechas.org]
* A company that is an ASP for electronic invoicing and document storage: [http://www.buzone.com www.buzone.com]

'''Course Work'''

* Wikipedia Article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail The Long Tail] -- [[Assignment_1_Details_and_Reporting|Reporting]]
* [[oscar.howell/Social Capital and Digital Citizenship|Assignment 3: Social Capital and Digital Citizenship]]
* Group Presentation: [[oscar.howell/Labor on the Web|Labor on the Web]]
* Group Presentation Response: [[Group_presentation_and_respondent_sign-up#April_22|April 22 Group 1]]
* [[oscar.howell/Final Project Page]]

'''Some References'''

* [[oscar.howell/commons|Essay on Late Capitalism and Commons]]
* [http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/wikipedia/wikipedia07.pdf Cooperation and Quality in Wikipedia]
* [http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/p2p/p2p.pdf Bootstraping the Long Tail in P2P Systems]
* [http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge238.html Social Networks are like the Eye]
* [http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-03/ff_autism Social Networks and derived Social Capital for Autists]

'''Books I think are relevant.'''

* Rishad Aiyer Ghosh, Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Economy
* Marleen Huysman and Volker Wulf, Social Capital and Information Technology
* Karen Mossberger, et.al., Digital Citizenship
* Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons
* Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks
* Eric von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation
* Patrice Filchy, the Internet Imaginaire
* Richard Rogers, Information Politics on the Web
* Humberto Maturana, De MÃ¡quinas y Seres Vivos
* Rick Levine, The Cluetrain Manifesto
* Steven Johnson, Emergence
* Tom Standage, The Victorian Internet
* Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries
* Ned Rossiter, Organized Networks
* StÃ©phane Dufoix, Disaporas
* Nelly Oudshoorn, Trevor Pinch, How Users Matter
* Victor Mayer-SchÃ¶nberger and David Lazer, Governance and Information Technology
* Rich Ling, New Tech, New Ties
* Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large
* Aihwa Ong, Flexible Citizenship, the Cultural Logics of Transnationality
* Enrique Dussel, Etica de la LiberaciÃ³n en la edad de la GlobalizaciÃ³n y de la ExclusiÃ³n
* Peter Sloterdijk, Sphaeren I: Blasen

http://www.brechas.org

User:Chris L

2024-08-21T14:21:46Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1714521600

'''How Much of an Effect is the Internet Having on the 2008 Democratic elections?'''

There sure is a lot of hype over the internet’s influence on the 2008 election cycle. It all started on the web, of course, but now that the primaries are in full swing and the candidates are raising tens of millions of dollars a month via the web, the main stream media are also covering the internet campaigns.

In early 2007 Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry of [http://www.personaldemocracy.com PersonalDemocracy.com] launched [http://www.techpresident.com TechPresident.com], a blog with the following motivation: “The 2008 election will be the first where the Internet will play a central role, not only in terms of how the campaigns use technology, but also in how voter-generated content affects its course. TechPresident.com plans to track all these changes in real-time, covering everything from campaign websites, online advertising and email lists to the postings on YouTube and who's got the fastest growing group of friends on MySpace.” Their site has become one of my dearest resources for information regarding how the primaries are playing out on the social networking sites. Using their homepage, I can quickly see that Obama’s YouTube views are up 3.9% this week to 38,343,844, compared to Clinton’s 11,231,780.

In a [http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/29/technology/leonard_politics.fortune/index.htm March article] from Fortune's Devin Leonard, Rishad Tobaccowala, a tech executive with Publicis, a big French ad company, noted several ways in which Obama was winning the net battle. On the list, “his web site is amazing. It's completely and continually updated. It feels alive and energetic. His campaign also actively uses e-mail to keep you totally informed.” Tobaccowala also referenced an Obama fundraising example, “They also created these challenges - when Clinton donated $5 million to her campaign, the Obama campaign sent out a note saying we have to match this quickly. In 24 hours, people donated $8 million to Obama.”

In another March article in the NY Times, media journalist Brian Stelter wrote about Barack Obama’s video response to President Bush’s State of the Union saying it “elicited little attention from newspaper and television reporters in January. But on the medium it was made for, the Internet, the video caught fire. Quickly after it was posted on YouTube, it appeared on the video-sharing site’s most popular list and Google’s most blogged list. It has been viewed more than 1.3 million times, been linked by more than 500 blogs and distributed widely on social networking sites like Facebook.”

[http://compete.com Compete.com] is a great source for tracking the kind of web action Stelter was referring to. A [http://blog.compete.com/topics/politics/ recent post] by blogger Matt Pace says the race isn’t even close when measured by FaceTime, Compete’s “holistic measure of web-wide candidate engagement based on the total amount of time voters spend with candidates across the leading social networks and video sharing websites.” According to Compete Obama dominates the FaceTime battle by more than a 4 to 1 margin. They also note that Obama raised about twice as much as Clinton in March. Based on the $40MM and $20MM figures used, though, it does not appear they were able to separate funds raised on the web from other sources. Showing that Obama leads Clinton in visits to the respective campaign websites Pace concludes “Don’t believe the media hype, this race really isn’t really that close.

If you live on the web, or spend a significant amount of time there, it sure does look like new media has created a seismic shift in political campaigns. And it looks like Barack Obama is capitalizing on that shift more than any other candidate. But, are some of us getting just a little irrationally exuberant? Are internet proponents so caught up in online happenings that we overestimate the web’s impact on non-virtual life? Sure Obama Girl has 10 gazillion views, and there are hundreds of videos of various Obama speeches on YouTube; sure Obama has 766,923 Facebook supporters and 345,443 MySpace friends, but do MySpace friends win elections. Let’s face it though; all of those Facebook and MySpace supporters combined only add up to a very small percentage of the votes it will take to win in November.

Approximately 121 million Americans voted in the 2004 general election. George Bush won by about 3 million votes. If all else stays equal, (Of course it’s not, I’m just using some generalities to make a point. Stick with me.) Democrats need to capture roughly 4 million more votes this time around. Is the millennial generation, the primary cohort of net denizens, enough to put Obama over the edge in the primaries (I include caucuses under the label of “primary” here.) and in Nov.? Are there enough of them? And more importantly, are they just creating and passing around videos, or are they going to the polls too?

To find out I first went to see how many “young voters” there are. According to a project at the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management called Youth Voter Strategies there are currently about 50 million 18-31 year olds in the U.S.* According to U.S. Census data 18-29 years olds accounted for 16.8% of the population in 2006. With a total population of just below 300 million at that time, the 50 million GW figure appears accurate. But are they all voting?

In a recent [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9196.html Politico.com post] blogger David Mark surveyed election turnout at the primaries and came to the conclusion that we could be looking at a “turnout tsunami” in November. He notes that “On Super Tuesday alone, turnout records were set in 15 states where both parties held Feb. 5 primaries. Twelve states saw record-breaking Democratic turnout while 11 set Republican turnout records.” Citing the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, Mark writes “Many state and local election officials expect turnout in the Nov. 4 presidential election to exceed that of 2004, when voter turnout hit 61 percent which was the highest level since 1968.” Regarding the youth vote, the CSAE [http://www.american.edu/ia/cdem/csae/pdfs/csae041104.pdf report on the 2004 election results] said “While there are no reliable figures on the much-publicized youth turnout (exit polls are notoriously and consistently unreliable on turnout questions), it is likely that college-attending youth substantially increased their turnout rate in the states in which they were targeted – the battleground states. It is also probable that college-attending youth increased their turnout much more modestly in non-battleground states. But it is likely that there were no increases in turnout of non-college-attending youth who were largely not targeted.” According to the same report battleground states had a 6.3% increase in turnout while the nationwide increase was 5.3%. Notwithstanding CSAE’s claim regarding unreliable figures, the above mentioned Youth Voter Strategies group at GW, in a May 2006 [http://www.gwu.edu/~media/pressrelease.cfm?ann_id=22131 press release], found that “in 2004 turnout among 18-24 year-olds voters increased an unprecedented 11 percentage points over 2000 levels (US. Census), compared to a four point increase among all voters.” It has been widely reported that youth turnout this cycle is surpassing 2004.

A January 31 Time article titled [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1708570,00.html The Year of the Youth Vote ] used Obama to illustrate increased youth turnout: “Combining digital-age technology with old-fashioned shoe leather, the Illinois Senator first rallied Iowa students to cancel Clinton's cakewalk. While enthusiastic Democrats of all ages produced a 90% increase in turnout for the first caucuses, the number of young voters was up half again as much: 135%. The kids preferred Obama over the next-closest competitor by more than 4 to 1. The youngest slice the under-25 set, typically among the most elusive voters in all of politics gave Obama a net gain of some 17,000 votes. He won by just under 20,000.”

So there are 50 million of them (please read “us” here, if applicable) and they/we are certainly turning out in larger numbers this cycle. At this point, though, it is hard to tell exactly how much of an increase there has been in 2008. If the Iowa example above stayed true for all states, the race would already be over.

It does seem clear that Obama is winning the younger vote. According to [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#OHDEM CNN exit polls], for instance, even in a state that Clinton won, like Ohio, Obama carried the 17-29 group by a 26 point margin. Likewise New Jersey, which went for Clinton overall, gave Obama a 20 point victory in the 18-29 age group. But is this enough to carry him to victory? I’ll stick with the Ohio example for the moment. Using U.S. Census data from 2000, the last comprehensive data set, we see that there are about 2 million millennials (defined as age 17-29 in this case) in Ohio. They make up about 17.25% of the state’s population. According to the CNN exit polls just under 350,000 of them voted in the democratic primary. That is just under 18% of the cohort. (Ohio was a pivotal primary state for democrats. Interest was extremely high on their side. The nationwide turnout average for this cohort so far is in the 12% range - based on my calculations using the CNN poll figures.) Whether that is a few percentage points more than turned out in 2004 or not, the number doesn’t seem substantial enough for us to declare that the youth vote has emerged as the deciding factor in this primary, or in November.

Based on the CNN numbers Obama received approximately 213,434 youth votes in Ohio. Let’s say that is a healthy 20% increase over the 2004 turnout. If there are 50 million millennials and we assume 95% of them are voter eligible (take out non-citizens and some felons), we get 47,500,000 potential young voters. If Democrats, as previously noted, need 4 million votes above and beyond 2004, and if those votes are to come from millennials, (the supposition I make if we are to attribute the increase to the internet and social networking) then they need an additional 8.4% of the total eligible cohort. We are not talking about an 8% increase in youth turnout over 2004, this is big numbers. Let’s go back to Ohio. The Ohio cohort is currently about 2 million strong. An increase of 8.4% requires 168,000 new voters. Forget about increases over 2004 numbers. That is a 48% jump from the little less than 350,000 that voted this March. And remember, this was a high turnout state.

Now I understand there is quite a bit of assumption wrapped up in this analysis. Things are different now. The President’s approval rating is at historic lows. People are unhappy with the situation in Iraq and with the economy. The Democrats can likely expect a little bump in support this time around even without a whole new crop of voters. Additionally, new Democratic support could easily come from voters above 30 years old. (In all this discussion of Obama and young voters, it should be noted that Clinton crushes him in the senior cohort. She has huge margins of victory among voters aged 65 and up in virtually every democratic primary so far.) But nobody has dubbed this “The Year of the Senior Vote” or “The Year of the Anti-Bush Vote.” It is “The Year of the Youth Vote,” the year of the first “Tech President,” the “YouTube election.” So I thought it important to see if the youth vote specifically, driven by new technology, would be the deciding factor in 2008. It is a contributing factor, yes, and an important one. But I think it premature and unwise to delude ourselves into believing that Facebook and YouTube will decide who our next President is. If they were going to we would already have a Democratic nominee.
.
So voter turnout is up this year, particularly among millennials, and indications are this will continue into the general election. They may not be creating the landslide some are trying to conjure up but young voters are definitely getting involved. Of those, a majority favor Senator Obama. Why? Well for starters, he’s 46. Clinton is 60. (McCain, if elected, will be oldest incoming President in history at 72.) But even though age helps young voters feel more connected to Obama, the real connection is in how his campaign has engaged them.

As various politicos have noted this year, the traditional campaign is a top-down enterprise. The candidate creates ads and messages and releases them to the “media” in the hope that they will get a lot of attention. The candidate does things to try and attract positive attention while attempting to draw attention to opponent’s missteps. This attention equates to television and newspaper coverage. The transformation Obama in enacting is a move to bottom-up content generation. His campaign is truly a “grassroots” movement. Instead of just creating and then broadcasting his message in the hopes of garnering attention, Obama has gone to the voter. He is campaigning where the voter is. Instead of hoping to grab their attention he has walked into their lives. We used to say that so and so TV personality came “into your living room.” Obama has come into our offices, our dorms, our kitchens and our bedrooms via our PCs.

A big portion of this is being accomplished by simply enabling and encouraging people to become advocates. This is one of the most profound changes in campaigning brought on by the net. We talk about raising money $100 at a time and that is indeed powerful. But think how many millions of $ worth of advertising Obama has gotten without spending anything. He did absolutely nothing for [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY “Yes We Can”] (if you discount [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms&feature=related the speech] which inspired the video) yet the video has more than 12 million YouTube views, its own website, a Wikipedia page and received significant coverage in the main stream media. It may be difficult to measure this kind of thing in terms of votes but there is no question that it is influencing the debate. More people are engaged because of it. This engagement is rooted in the nature of viral networking. Millennials are net denizens; they are linked to and often emotionally dependent upon extended networks of friends. They access that network physically and digitally. If their friends are interested in a particular candidate, they are going to get lots of information about that candidate whether they like it or not. Not necessarily because their friends make a point of talking up the candidate all the time, which they may or may not do, but because the net allows their friends to link and forward copious amounts of candidate info - press releases, news coverage, commercials, Twitters, homemade videos etc. – with only a couple clicks on a mouse or an IPhone. In the above mentioned Brian Stelter article, Jane Buckingham, a market research executive, is quoted regarding a college student who attended one of her focus groups. Addressing the fact that youth are in constant contact nowadays, the student said “If the news is that important, it will find me.”

Whether or not Senator Obama ascends to the White House, the effects of his tech-savvy campaign will be widespread. Regarding the candidate’s speech on race relations the night before, TechPresident’s March 19 email round-up said, “The video of Obama’s 37-minute-long speech has been watched nearly a million times in less than twenty-four hours. Add the ability to get the YouTube generation to watch a 30+ minute political speech on their computer -- YouTube only counts full viewings as a "view" -- to the list of Obama’s accomplishments.”

The impact of the 2008 campaign goes beyond the youth vote also. In response to recent criticism of Obama regarding his comments about “bitter” Pennsylvanians, supporters quickly set up [http://www.bittervoters.org/ BitterVoters.org] to admit they are bitter and show that is part of the reason they wholeheartedly support Obama. The site includes testimonial posts from admittedly bitter voters and a YouTube video clip of a 2004 Obama interview with Charlie Rose that sheds light on the reasoning behind the senator’s recent comment.

Bittergate, as some are now calling it, is the perfect example of the net’s other (as in, besides mobilizing the youth vote) effect on this election. The story originally broke in a 6:43am post this past Friday at [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html Off the Bus], the political blog section of the Huffington Post. The post was written by Mayhill Fowler, Obama supporter and regular Off the Bus contributor, a citizen journalist. By 9am Sunday morning Clinton had responded, Obama had done a little backtracking and Tim Russert and company were debating the comment on Meet the Press. This is the power of new media and viral networks. We are watching this power evolve on an almost daily basis now. This is the first big story of this campaign, as far as I know, that was not about internet activity per se but broke on the net. We are going to see more and more of this. News stories generated by main stream media currently dictate most of the content in the blogosphere and on YouTube. Fowler’s post may be evidence that the tide is shifting the other way. The shift toward a situation where more newsworthy content is generated on the web was already underway before 2008. The huge interest in this election cycle, however, is catapulting this process forward and I’m starting to get the feeling that the news cycle as we know it today may not even exist by November 5, 2008.

* I have been unable to access the Youth Voter Strategies website (www.youthvoterstrategies.org) for a couple days though they are still mentioned as active on the current GW site. Their research on the 2006 election cycle was somewhat widely quoted, though, and I was able to find a synopsis of some of their research, including the 50mm figure at the following URL: (http://jade.orchidsuites.net/eangel/clients/youngvoterstrategies-org/index.php?tg=fileman&idx=get&inl=1&id=1&gr=Y&path=Research&file=Young+Voters+by+the+Numbers.pdf)

Following are a couple other relevant links that didn’t make it into the paper above:

1) Obama’s November 2007 YouTube interview talking about his innovation platform http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1MGi12RspA
2) Obama girl’s “I got a crushon Obama” hit. The one that started it all. There are several now and BarelyPolitical.com is probably working on another one right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

3) A good summary of turnout for the 2008 cycle thus far from The United States Elections Project at George Mason University
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

4) An informative paper on the youth vote from The Century Foundation
http://www.tcf.org/publications/electionreform/youthvote.pdf

5) Washington Post graphic showing how much more Obama spent on the web in January & February 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/28/GR2008032800293.html

--[[User:Chris L|Chris L]] 17:42, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Following is something else I thought was interesting and applied somewhat to a question asked in class about "disenfranchised" youth voters.

A 2004 article by the folks at workplace consultancy “The Learning CafÃ©” compared Gen X’ers and Millennials. The list below was part of their work and offers, I think, some pretty good insight into why the youth voter movement is more active today. Note that they optimistic, connected, confident and friend oriented. They are immersed in causes and idealistic about their ability to affect positive change in the world. Considering these traits, you can see how the viral nature of an internet-focused campaign could attract such attention and allegiance from this cohort. Obama responds to issues they care about in a medium that is their own.

Generation X - Born 1965-1976, 51 million, Accept diversity, Pragmatic/practical, Self-reliant/individualistic, Reject rules, Killer life, Mistrust institutions, PC, Use Technology, Multitask, Latch-key kids, Friends - not family

Millennials - Born 1977 – 1998, 75 million, Celebrate diversity, Optimistic/realistic, Self-inventive/individualistic, Rewrite the rules, Killer lifestyle, Irrelevance of institutions, Internet, Assume Technology, Multitask fast, Nurtured, Friends = Family

--[[User:Chris L|Chris L]] 18:21, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

A point about political consultants and the web that did not make into the paper:

Chris Borick, a pollster and political science professor at Muhlenberg College’s Institute of Public Opinion, recently told me that the vast majority of all the political consultants he knows still view the internet as a fringe part of campaigning. He specifically mentioned the fact that they drive only a small portion of the budgets to online ads. Blog queen Arianna Huffington echoed that sentiment at a recent NYU panel discussion when she stated “we’ll never fully see the power of the internet in politics until the current generation of consultants retires because they are not really comfortable with the internet.” She also mentioned the fact that most fundraising still goes to support 30 sec. TV ads. Following that Jeff Jarvis, panel moderator and journalism professor at CUNY, noted that Obama spent $1MM in January on Google but Clinton spent about $100k. (Watch the panel discussion titled “New Media & the 2008 Elections” at [http://www.groundreport.com/Arts_and_Culture/Video-of-How-the-Web-is-Changing-American-Politics GroundReport.com.]) See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/03/28/GR2008032800293.html this Washington Post chart] depicting January & February web expenditures by the Democratic candidates.

--[[User:Chris L|Chris L]] 18:33, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

User:Paulglester

2024-08-21T14:21:44Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1714521600

== Paul Lester ==
[[Image: N541663545_104822_2824.jpg |200px|thumb|left|Paul Lester]]Hello. My name is Paul Lester, and I'm a distance learning student taking the course [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Main_Page Internet and Society: Technologies and the Politics of Control]. I'm enrolled in [http://extension.harvard.edu/ Harvard's Extension School program] and seeking a [http://extension.harvard.edu/2008-09/programs/it/cert/ Certificate in Applied Sciences] with a specialization in Multimedia and Creative Content.

== About me ==

I'm an associate online editor for [http://www.guardian.co.uk/america Guardian America], the Washington DC office for the British media company, [http://www.guardian.co.uk The Guardian]. I previously worked as an online producer for [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/ OrlandoSentinel.com] in Orlando, Florida.

== Social networking ==

You can follow me on [http://twitter.com/paulglester Twitter] and be my friend on [http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=541663545 Facebook].

Course FAQ

2024-08-21T14:21:17Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1714521600

===How can I participate in the class?===

=== How can I reach the TAs? ===
Preferably via email, but also by phone. Contact information is [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Staff_Contact_Info here].

===Where can I see the streaming video?===
[rtsp://harmony.law.harvard.edu/ptc.sdp]

===What is the Question Tool?===

===I am unable to meet on Tuesdays, but want to participate. What can I do?===

Oscar.howell/Social Capital and Digital Citizenship

2024-08-21T14:20:49Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1714521600

__TOC__

* I selected the form of a wiki page to allow contributions from the group. Please feel free to edit the content. [[User:Oscar.howell|Oscar]] 06:52, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

== Elevator Pitch and H2O Playlist ==

* The H2O playlist is here: http://h2obeta.law.harvard.edu/245345

Widespread availability of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Information_technology Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)] have made possible that citizens become economically active in collaborative and peer production networks, and develop new forms of Social Capital. ICTs also may strongly exclude a large group of citizens who are not computer literate or don’t have access to technology. The exclusion happens not only in developing countries.

In this regard it is interesting to explore if access to ICTs should be regulated by government to ensure equal opportunity. Should a Digital Citizenship be regarded as the ability to participate in the new non-market processes and assets? Related to this issue, I would propose to review the positive effects of the development of Social Capital using ICTs and the negative effects of exclusion. This should give us an idea of the desirability of regulation by governments.

== Definition of Social Capital (SC) ==

Introduction to '''Social Capital''': The idea of sharing is central to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital Social Capital]. Sharing and the methods of obtaining value from the shared objects are part of how we understand a Commons, a commonly held good. We don’t share just because we want to give something away. We share and we expect something in return. As it is in every social and economic transaction. Behind this process is the ethic principle of reciprocal behavior.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28cultural_anthropology%29 Reciprocal behavior] has a distinct social value, apart from any normative value. In the case of the [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia] or [http://del.icio.us del.icio.us] one obtains the right to make use of the common knowledge and effort of the whole community.

In the case of [http://www.facebook.com Facebook] and other social networking sites it is the value of the network itself, of the “weak ties” that lie behind much of the economical possibilities. How much does it cost to build up Social Capital? It is an important cost (time, effort, transaction, sharing). The Internet can lower this cost significantly (see Shirky, Here Comes Everybody). Nevertheless, the fact that it is a form of capital remains.

* Huysman and Wulf define Social Capital as “a network of ties of goodwill, mutual support, shared language, shared norms, social trust, and a sense of mutual obligation that people can derive value from” and further say that “communities will foster social capital, thereby increasing people’s motivation to share knowledge” (Social Capital and Information Technology, 2004)

'''Traditions and ideas in Social Capital'''

* '''Marxist Tradition''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu (see: Pierre Bourdieu)]: sees Social Capital as accumulated and potential labor units. This accumulation is pivotal in shaping social relations and leads to separation and class struggle. In this tradition exists the figure of the capitalist that accumulates the social capital in his own pecuniary benefit (in the form of bondage and contracts, and relationships)

* '''Communitarian Tradition''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam (see: Robert Putnam)]: this distinctly American tradition sees social capital as the shared effort of a community for the public good. The emphasis is on collective work and on civic engagement. It is a socially normative and utopian view that is heir to the Calvinist tradition of “communities of work” and the covenant. This tradition is the support for much of thinking behind the social network and its collective good.

* '''Ethical Proposal''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama (see: Francis Fukuyama)]: Centers on the social values that make up the glue of the community. Puts emphasis the ethical and trust aspects of social capital above class and community.

'''Social Capital and the Internet.'''

There are several instances on the Internet where the formation of networks of people with “weak ties” (as opposed to “strong” or “family ties”), enable them to leverage the social value of the network to achieve some economic, civic or political result. The main characteristic of these examples is that the accumulated social capital of the clusters enable the performance activities that would otherwise be too costly to perform in an organization (in the sense of Coase) or a traditional market system.

== Definition of Digital Citizenship (DC) ==

The concept that gives form to the idea of citizenship is that of participation. A citizen of a community has the right and the civic ability to participate in every aspect of the community or nation she is a citizen of. The person that is a citizen is expected to take a part in the ''res publica'', the public affairs of the state: its management, political norms and defense. The citizen is also expected to take part in the process of formation of public reason and justice. A citizen is more than just an individual person, it is the idea of the political and public person.

The citizen enjoys the protection and benefits of the state. The individual person surrenders a series of rights to the state in order to become a citizen, in exchange for protection and social acceptance.

In a democratic form of government the idea of citizenship is closely linked to the concepts of equality and opportunity.

When we speak of Digital Citizenship we mean the possibility of the person to take part in the digital society, with the same implications as the foregoing concept of citizenship, including security and equality.

Digital Citizenship has also an international and global perspective. The online society is part of a global network, and the space of influence of the digital citizen is seen as global in reach too.

'''Traditions in Citizenship and Participation'''

* '''Liberalism: The equality of opportunity'''. Society must guarantee that every citizen has equal opportunities to realize its potential. Under circumstances government regulation and intervention is needed to counter the inequalities of distribution. It is an economic proposal, and is possible that it does not aim to attain political equality (a form of exclusion)

* '''Republicanism: The public good'''. The citizen must be endowed with the elements, like education and economic means, to work towards the public good. In some cases can be an elitist position. The aim of the government is to ensure the democratic citizenship and the participation, with the public good as guiding principle. Equality of economic opportunity is secondary (also a form of exclusion)

* '''Ascriptive Hierarchy: The class society'''. The rights to participate and the opportunities are based on class or racial memberships. Under this idea the most cases of exclusion are found. The person is in some cases denied the right of citizenship on grounds of social ascription.

== The intersection of SC and DC ==
* ''Participation.'' The use of ICT opens new possibilities for persons and groups to develop SC, with new ways for them to participate socially, economically and politically. The creation of SC means better opportunities for income and development. It also means new ways to express oneself artistically. SC and ICT enable collective civic action that has a growing political meaning.

* ''Equality''. The political sphere recognizes the growing influence of SC and the formation of clusters online. This means that a form of DC has to be created and regulated. DC means rights and responsibilities. And it means some form of government regulation. The aim of DC has to be to ensure equality of opportunity and civic liberties. But it also means regulation of identity online and the free expression of political rights. When we are faced with “emergent democracy” that happens online, the political sphere and government are involved.

* ''Exclusion''. In the special case of exclusion, a solution must be found to the new forms of exclusion from DC and SC. The fact that a large percentage of the population has a low level of literacy, and a lower still level of computer literacy, creates a situation in which a group of persons will be excluded from opportunity and political action. The internet could be considered a Commons, a public good. A democratic government should enact regulations that ensure that the majority of the population can become an active Digital Citizen. This would mean to regulate and promote access, identity, security, borders and education.

* ''Emergent Democracy''. A new form of direct democratic system, instead of representative democracy, may result from the intersection of SC and DC. Where groups have accumulated SC (have invested in, "clustered"), they will be interested in exercising political rights trough DC to protect, establish property rights and make use of SC ("coping"). The widespread use of ICT to exercise political rights may lead to a form of direct democratic system, an “emergent democracy” (Johnson, Ito) or “electronic agora” (Rheingold). The Digital Citizen participates directly in the management of public affairs and the forming of public reason.

== The Issues of Government Regulation ==

* Education - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND7_BZeUftc EducaciÃ³n y ExclusiÃ³n]
** The government should ensure the digital citizenÂ´s equal access and opportunity to education
** Technology education should be included in the program of every school

* Property - [http://www.creativecommons.org Creative Commons]
** The regulation of property online, and copyrights is key to the use of the internet
** This is a global issue

* Security and Policing - [http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/ Web Security Context Working Group]
** Identity theft, SPAM, Malware - Should the state police the internet?
** Is the Digital Citizen interested in security online?
** A new way to make identification on the Internet is necessary to participation and freedom of speech
** Should local governments enact separate regulations or should an international proposal be alloewd to emerge?

* Globalization, the international digital citizen?
** Is the Internet borderless?
** Can Social Capital be exported or converted into global goods?

== Inclusion and Exclusion, Law, Economics and... Politics (links) ==

(1) Inclusion

* [http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-03/ff_autism Social Networks and derived Social Capital for Autists]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/thedavosquestion The Davos Question (youtube) i.e. inclusion ?]

(2) Exclusion

* [http://lawrie.jiscinvolve.org/2007/11/23/towards-digital-exclusion/ Towards Digital Exclusion (Blog)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGWzIbOCfuc EverybodyOnline Northern Ireland Project Officers, (video 8 minutes)]

(3) Law

* [http://www.prodiversitas.bioetica.org/nota26.htm "Usos y Costumbres" Law in Chiapas, MÃ©xico]

(4) Economics

* [http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/revista/noticias/articuloCEPAL/0/19970/P19970.xml&xsl=/revista/tpl-i/p39f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl-i/top-bottom.xslt Equity and Exclusion in Latin America]* [http://www.dirsi.net/espanol/content/view/47/47/ Digital Poverty]

(5) Politics

* [http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/ The Zapatistas, a guerrilla movement and the internet]
* [http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/malaysian_bloggers_become_politicians.php In Malaysia, Bloggers Become Politicians], ''ReadWriteWeb,'' February 26, 2008 link by --[[User:Zsaulkalns|Zsaulkalns]] 13:12, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Some Additional References ==

* [http://www.btplc.com/Societyandenvironment/PDF/Digitaldivide2025.pdf The digital divide in 2025, a document by BT (PDF)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nem9KYWVoE0 Democracy, Poverty, Growth and Social Exclusion, Alejandro Toledo, Columbia University (video, 84 minutes)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5s3Z0iesRM&feature=user Howard Rheingold: Way-new collaboration TED (video, 18 minutes)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt1rdqf6mHA&feature=related Bridging the Digital Divide in Uganda (video, 7:44 minutes)]
* [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm Francis Fukuyama, Social Capital]

Oscar.howell/Final Project Page

2024-08-21T14:20:41Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1714521600

'''Final Project: Digital Citizenship and Exclusion'''

== Digital Citizenship and Exclusion ==
Is there a strong link between the changing idea of citizenship in the digital age and social justice? In this essay I argue that digital citizenship is to be considered a part of the social rights of citizens, and that doing so should limit the impact of exclusion from participation and from governance of the Internet. That is not because digital citizenship changes what citizenship and nation-states are about. I will argue it is because digital citizenship changes the framework in which citizens engage in their social, economical and political activism. This change and its causes are important in the study of the Internet, of the social processes that are within it and helpful to make sure Cyberspace obtains the open and democratic qualities we value.

== Imagined Communities ==

I am writing this essay on Pangea Day, the 10th of May 2008. 30 years ago I was a teenager in Costa Rica, Central America. In those last years of the 70s we as a society were rethinking the strategy of import substitution as conductive to economic development, and entering into what was later called the lost decade, the infamous 80s. Costa Rica felt still very much like the last place in the world to be for a teenager discovering what lies beyond: backward, tropical, conservative and with economic problems. Then there was an event that changed my perception of the world around me. It was not another political crisis or the devastating earthquake in Managua or the collapse of the Somoza government. It was technology in its mass media/TV incarnation.

Until the year 1979 there were 4 open television channels in Costa Rica. One was operated by the government and the others by private companies. But the government, and by extension the Catholic Church, very much dictated what was going on in television. The broadcasting of programs was seen as a public service, and therefore the government had an interest in regulation. Finally in 1979-80 a local cable company came into being that distributed television channels from the US, which it illegally “captured” via satellite. We all rushed to obtain a cable connection and have access to this new world of TV programming.

The day that our connection was ready and the TV set finally turned on the first thing on the screen was an ad by Eastern Airlines. What struck me first was not the thrill of being a consumer of US TV. The overriding feeling was the realization that at this very same moment thousands of Americans were watching the exact same ad. They did so from their reality and I did so from mine, both very different indeed. At the same time it was not some kind of TV show that got selected, translated, censored, refried and served to us by local TV stations. It was such an original piece of American TV junk. It gave me a sense of belonging, of participation in something bigger than my immediate tropical and dismal surroundings.

The first years of the 80s were marked then by the coming of MTV, ESPN and CNN. And by the access we had to a wide variety of that American pop culture which became a global reference. To this day I can discuss with people that were teenagers during the same period the details of the original MTV programming that were good and that inspired us. It is a connection we have despite of growing up in different countries and societies. We came to take part in a new society that was becoming global.

There was a channel from Chicago, which used to transmit the Chicago Cubs games. At the time Wrigley Field had no lights, the Cubs were not exactly one of the best clubs in the NL and the commentator was Harry Caray. The fact that the Chicago channel was available in a regular basis resulted in the Cubs developing a large fan community in Costa Rica (which did not include myself). After a couple of years the Cubs were a household name, as popular as any local soccer team. People discussed the games during lunch and groups of fans were organized to travel to Wrigley Field and see Ryne Sandberg. What is the probability of the Cubs of the 80s developing such a following in a place like Costa Rica, with no baseball tradition whatsoever? In fact, many years afterwards, as the Cubs won a World Series, one of the places they visited as champions was Costa Rica!

We as a society came to be connected to a larger place, and to be a participant in events that took place in other parts of the world. This “place” I would like to call an imagined community, in the sense that only the media could make it possible for me and us to take part in something that we did not know by experience, but could only imagine and construct in a process of cultural becoming. Arjun Appadurai developed a theory of rupture that “takes media and migration as its two major, and interconnected, diacritics and explores their joint effect on the work of the imagination as a constitutive feature of modern subjectivity.” (Appadurai, p.3). Imagination is the important part that lets me, as social agent, break my immediateness and become part of something else, which I live out as part of my reality. “It is the imagination, in its collective forms, that creates ideas of neighborhood and of nationhood, of moral economies and unjust rule []” (Appadurai, p.7).

With time access to a wide variety of TV programming is not a rarity anymore, but a daily fact in Costa Rica as (almost) anywhere in the world. Our society came to recognize that the need to belong was becoming a part of what our place and participation in the world is: to be informed, to have access to different sources, to use technology as a tool, and to get to know each other. The central issue was the growing demand for the ability to participate in a society that very quickly was becoming larger than our own town or country. And we came to recognize that our technological personae was becoming more than simple passive users, it was becoming a complementary part of our personality and of our citizenship.

“An important fact of the world we live in today (1996) is that many persons on the globe live in such imagined worlds (and not just imagined communities) and thus are able to contest and sometimes subvert the imagined worlds of the official mind [] ” (Appadurai, p.33). The experience was a pre-figuration of the combination of nation-state, citizenship and cyberspace that was becoming possible in the next years. For my argument now I will leave out the related issues of migration, transnationality and “flexible citizenship” (Ong) as a new “mode of constructing identity, as well as new modes of subjectification that cut across political borders” (Ong, p.18), since my focus is in the forms of participation within society enabled by technology rather than in the migrant diasporas that became possible in the same context.

== Cyberspace and Virtual Society ==

Then a new and more powerful imagined community came into being in the 90s: Cyberspace. And with it what we now call a “virtual society” or “society online”. What is new is not that we are able to grasp our belonging to a larger community, or that technology enables us to do so but that the medium has become participatory. It is not just broadcasting and consumerism. A new place has been created called “cyberspace” that exists beyond our community and in which we are able communicate and to take action: personally, socially, economically and politically. This place is not “virtual”; it has its proper architecture and rules.

But why is it that we speak of a society, and not just of a group, a network or an association? Why is it that we regard cyberspace as a social Gestalt? The reason is twofold: first it is an extension of our social surroundings; it is version 2.0 of our imagined communities. Second we understand cyberspace mainly in political terms. One of the founding documents of cyberspace is a political manifesto by John Perry Barlow: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. In it technology is of secondary importance to the rights, social and economic norms of the new digital world: “We are forming our own Social Contract [] may it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before” (Barlow)

We have established an “independent” virtual society online, and this society has its citizens, sometimes called also “netizens”. But it is not just an expanded and imaginary society; it is also an embedded society. It coexists, due to its lack of geographical location, with other societies and political groups (Barlow: “Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere”). It is not in contradiction to them, but is a complementary social form.

When I speak here of society I mean properly a “meta-society” that is formed out of the real-world society, the imagined communities and the online society of Cyberspace, all existing in one place, and in many cases contingent on access to ICTs. It is in this regard that public policy of the “host” governments is in need to deal with this extension to its traditional idea of citizenship, participation and social justice.

== Digital Citizenship ==

Karen Mossberg defines Digital Citizenship as “the ability to participate in society online” (Mossberg, p.1.). I will understand it here to refer to society in the sense of meta-society. To participate means to have access to and be able to take action in the social issues that are happening in cyberspace, using the Internet. But why speak of citizenship in reference to the Internet? Cyberspace has become a part of our social lives, it is a component of it just as education, social security or civil rights are, and moreover, it “has the potential to benefit society as a whole, and facilitate the membership of individuals within society” (Mossberg, p.1). As a means of being able to have a wider participation it is a social right and a part of citizenship as a whole, a right of membership in society. Digital citizenship puts the emphasis on the right of access to and skills for use of ICTs.

The basic idea of citizenship, the set of rights of membership in society, is to ensure that a people within a society have a legal framework for equality and justice. Citizenship is there to prevent exclusion in any of its forms: from political or civil rights, from voting rights or education. In the same manner, digital citizenship could be understood as a legal and regulatory framework to prevent digital exclusion: the fact that a large number of people are prevented from using ICTs because of economical, educational or social reasons. This is today sometimes referred to as the “digital divide”.

“Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us”: Barlow proposes a Cyberspace where ethical self-regulation will guarantee a kind of freedom from government control. But first of all, we will need the real-world laws and regulations that empower and give the people the rights within a society to be able to access this new world. Then we can begin to explore what are the consequences of a digital citizenship for Barlow’s world.

== Forms of Digital Exclusion. ==

“A political society is not, and cannot be, an association. We do not enter it voluntarily” (Rawls, p.4). We enter citizenship not by choice. It is a system of social cohesion and mandatory for all. Therefore we expect that the political framework of citizenship ensures equality, social cooperation and reduces exclusion. Social cooperation is regarded as having the elements for regulating social conduct, ensuring the fair terms of cooperation and of rational advantage. “then we can say without pretense and fakery that citizens are indeed free and equal” (Rawls, p.4).

Mossberg asserts that “digital citizenship encourages [] social inclusion” (Mossberg, p.1). In the same way that citizenship is not a choice, digital citizenship should not be optional. It is not a “nice to have”. The social agent must be able to ensure his rational advantage and prevent being subject to digital exclusion.

The Internet and cyberspace has in many cases been understood just as a private business, as in e-commerce. Or as an elitist “world of the mind”, in the words of Barlow, that may be accessed only by the chosen few that are able to understand its uniqueness, and that is not subject government control. But this is not right. The Internet is a social tool and the lack of regulation creates exclusion, which in turn leads to an unjust society, the very opposite of all cyber-utopias, Barlow’s included.

To better understand the instances of digital exclusion we can explore them starting from the intellectual traditions that give form to the idea of an equal citizen: the liberal and republican traditions, and the tradition of ascriptive hierarchy.

In the liberal tradition equality of all citizens is that of equal economic opportunity and choice. Its main manifestation is in the regulation of education. Citizens have a right to be educated and to exercise their skills in society.

Digital exclusion takes these forms:
* Not having the skills necessary to access and use technology
* Not being able to participate in online social networks that develop important new forms of social capital.
* Not being able to perform work online. More jobs and economic opportunities are being offered online as a result of social production networks and business models like crowdsourcing and peer-to-peer production. (Labor on the Web).

In the republican tradition the main focus is in the political rights of the citizen, its ability to be a good citizen for the betterment of the community as a whole. Education is not seen as a way for economic opportunity but as a way of developing the capacity to demand and exercise political rights.

Digital exclusion takes following forms:
* Inability to take part in civic and political processes that are happening in cyberspace, like emergent, participatory and semiotic democracy.
* The prevention from taking advantage of property protection and rights.
* Exclusion form exercising the rights of freedom of speech online and of access to information.

In the ascriptive hierarchy tradition the focus is on the rights of social groups based mainly on ethnic, gender and social aspects. The equality is expressed in rules like civil rights and affirmative action.

Digital exclusion takes following forms:
* Prevention from access dependent on group membership, like in the cases of indigenous people in Latin America, African-Americans or Latinos in the US. In some cases it can also affect gender groups, like women in Islamic fundamentalist countries.
* In some cases it expands to affect age groups, like the exclusion of school children from use of ICTs.
* Exclusion that is a product of socio-economic groups, as in the case of the poor having markedly decreased options to access the Internet. This is not only an issue in developing countries but in the US and Europe as well.

The virtual society of cyberspace is a social reality that is here within us and that transcends borders and political groups. This new world has brought a series of new opportunities, but also new form of inequality and of exclusion.

The spread of the Internet has created an effect of connectedness and of participation in a larger, imagined community. But given the extraordinary opportunity that the Internet brings, it is also a worrying situation that many people are excluded, in one way or another, from the use and benefits of the Internet. It is not a question of access to technology. It is a question of the right to participate, as a digital citizen, in this new instantiation of society. The access to this instance may require from us that we learn new ways to communicate and to connect. But it is a place where in the future a lot of political, civic and economic activity will take place, and the same society must ensure that there are equal opportunities to all, that the technology will not become a new barrier to inclusion and expression.

The development of a clear concept of digital citizenship can help prevent exclusion. The fault of governments has been that while they profess their support for equality of all citizens, this happens only within the traditional idea of citizenship. In many cases it flatly ignores the digital rights and the growing cases of injustice that digital exclusion creates.

“When there are only three channels on the television in a nation, being famous means becoming famous to an entire nation; in the age of participatory media, we’ll see thousands of microcelebrities, people who are famous to their own small or large communities” (from Ethan Zuckerman’s blog). Such is the possibility of the new online society. It is to have more opportunities within many kinds of social groups, audiences and spaces. In the end, digital citizenship will foster the possibility of the “micro-celebrity”, the “micro-community” and the “micro-state”, new kinds of self-expression, new political spaces, new kinds of networking and of assertion of my social rights.

== A framework for Digital Citizenship ==

The starting point to work out a framework for digital citizenship is to accept that cyberspace is not virtual; it is a real place with architecture and borders, where social participation is possible and where there is property and work. Having this in mind the important questions might be:
* How can I participate? (i.e., Identification as a member of the citizenry, rules for access, taxation);
* How can I obtain the skills needed? (i.e. Education, training); how is property defined and protected? (i.e. copyright, DRM);
* How can I obtain the economic benefits and rational advantage? (i.e., work, commerce, social capital); and very important:
* How can I exercise my political and social rights? (i.e. freedom of speech, activism, democracy, access to information, governance)

These questions open up wide fields for discussion and possible regulation. I propose the following as key elements to be addressed first when we consider in particular exclusion related to digital citizenship: Education and Governance.

== Education ==

When we speak of education in relationship to digital citizenship it means properly the development of new skills “to participate in society online” (Mossberg, p.1). Availability of access to ICTs is not enough if countries don’t prepare people to make productive and creative use of it. Jenkins mentions “a more empowered conception of citizenship” (Jenkins, p.3) in this regard, to “shift the focus of the conversation about the digital divide from questions of technological access to those of opportunities to participate and to develop the cultural competencies and social skills needed for full involvement” (Jenkins, p.4). What is important is widespread media literacy, not just availability of technology.

There are many deficiencies in the way we approach education and media literacy today. It starts with the problems of basic use and goes further to issues of responsible and ethical use. Policymakers should endeavor to define a comprehensive approach that enables the young to obtain the needed skills early on while in school, and lagging adults to have the possibility to learn them while in the workforce. “One of the key failures of many programs was that schools were provided with expensive equipment but with little o no support for teacher’s professional development, national ICT-in-education policies, or community involvement” (Hawkins, p.39).

Education is a social right associated with citizenship, a right to have access to the adequate kind of education we will need to be able to develop at a personal and professional level. Resnick calls it “digital fluency” making an analogy to the need of every citizen to speak the official language for ascription to the group. “In the years ahead, digital fluency will become a prerequisite for obtaining jobs, participating meaningfully in society, and learning throughout a lifetime” (Resnick, p.33)

== Governance ==

Governance is at the center of the relationship between the individual citizen and the state. The citizen has a rightful claim to participate in the ways Cyberspace is being governed and regulated. But as the reach of Cyberspace is global, we encounter the fact that “acting independently, a single government is unable to guarantee that a person will be accorded rights in cyberspace” (Rundle, p.15). The regulations being enacted and codified into the internet are defined and decided within international bodies that make the participation of citizens difficult. We encounter a problem where representation at the national level is not helpful to influence decisions made by supra-national institutions, decisions that will ultimately have an impact on how citizens’ rights are going to be handled in cyberspace. “In terms of accountability to the public, there is a basic disconnect between organizations making Net policy and member countries’ citizens” (Rundle, p.16)

When we think of governance we have two main issues to consider looking into the future: one is how we can empower local governments to have a greater role in the supervision of supra-national regulators, and second how we can empower global citizens to have an effective participation in the decision processes for governance and the preservation of citizens rights in cyberspace. Both are no easy task, but in order to ensure an online society that maintains democratic values and remains truly open, inclusive and global we have to find new ways of dealing with these issues. In moving in this direction “the international framework for governing the Net could signal the early stages of a global federation” (Rundle, p. 19)

== References ==

* Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. 1996. University of Minnesota Press.
* Barlow, John Perry. A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace. Davos, Switzerland, 1996. http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html
* Hawkins, Robert J. Ten Lessons for ICT and Education in the Developing World. The World Bank Institute. The Global Information Technology Report, 2001-2002, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2002/The_Global_Information_Technology_Report_2001-2002
* Jenkins, Henry. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MIT.
* Mossberg, Karen, et.al. Digital Citizenship. The Internet, Society, and Participation. 2008. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
* Ong, Aihwa. Flexible Citizenship. The cultural Logics of Transnationality. 1999. Duke University Press, Durham & London.
* Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness. A Restatment. 2001. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
* Resnick, Michael. Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age. MIT. The Global Information Technology Report,2001-2002, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2002/The_Global_Information_Technology_Report_2001-2002
* Rundle, Mary. Beyond Internet Governance: The Emerging International Framework for Governing the Networked World, 2005, The Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School.
* Zuckerman, Ethan. http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/

== Notes ==

Questions:

* How can a clear concept of Digital Citizenship help prevent exclusion and foster equal opportunity in cyberspace?

Issues:

* People form communities and develop Social Capital online (see social capital)
* People work online (See: Labor on the Web)
* People become politically & economically active online (civil society and e-commerce)
* People are connected globally (internet and borders)
* People today are excluded from taking part in online activities worldwide

What is digital citizenship?

* The right to access
* The right to education
* The right to equal economic opportunity
* The right to intellectual property
* Digital ID and Interoperability

How can it be achieved ?

* At the local level
* At the international level
* Technologically
* Culturally (as public reason, paradigmatic, Kuhn)
* Legally (Justice as Fairness, Rawls)

Technology and Politics of Control: Introduction

2024-08-21T14:20:24Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1714521600

What's up with the web? On this subject, The Future Of The Internet writes a past and a future around the reader's moment. The declaration and the manifesto attempt to deï¬ne the public and private internet in terms which seek ï¬nality and yet belie their protean present. "Digital Borders" gives the legal coordinates of a worldwide frontier. All of these readings give us context and historical background on the technology, culture, law and commerce of the internet and personal computers -the web. This huge subject reaches around all of us with tendrils of relevance. They're hiding around every corner. For example, one realizes that they are reading about publishing rights on a free, on-line publication. Is that strictly legal? Should one read on and seek and understanding of the law at the risk of breaking it? More reasonably, does this document describe itself and it's own relevance on this subject? Like the web, such tendrils are conceptual, made of whatever can be imagined, and much is made of this virtual, malleable openness which characterizes productive, expansive thought. It is, by all of these accounts, the key to the web's value. Naturally, the concept of control arises as the antithesis of all this good, generative stuff.

Control! It sounds fascist, or like the unfortunate predisposition of a clueless, brooding, antiquated chauvinist. But use the obvious simile where the web, in all of its organic complexity, is like a giant mind. It expands like a creative, learning thing. It learns to do new things, stores new information, and maybe changes temperament. It grows. Now, if you are picturing a child and phases of cognitive development, picture the out-of-control child. Picture the energetic, active, restless child with no parents. This image may mesh well with the 'state of nature' which is so palpable in John Perry Barlow's declaration. Yet Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu's article shows Yahoo! in a tug-o-war with the dreaded control which literally squelches fascism on the one hand enables wide-scale repression on the other. Control may be a force as powerful and malleable as openness. Maybe some balance can be found. And what about the money?

Economics, all things being equal, may provide some outside criteria by which to judge the progress of the rolling ball of control and generation at odds from this weeks readings. Barlow says there is no matter or property in cyberspace, and that all may enter without privilege of economics. The Cluetrain Manifesto says that "security is a red herring." One has to wonder whether these authors are really mindful of our 'world-wide' economic realities. It seems that countries with limited infrastructure will indeed depend on governments and tangible assets to achieve internet connectedness and concomitant education. And are the Cluetrain's ï¬fty-million users really bound by a common purpose more speciï¬c than general prosperity?* Economic arguments favor openness in Jonathan Zittrain's ï¬rst two chapters, where control manifests itself as inï¬exibility with a planned-obselescence-like wastefulness as detrimental as monopoly. The futurism and progressive fever in the declaration and manifesto show how the newness of the web and the vastness of its effects clearly contribute to a panoramic critique of business as usual. Alas, more generation. But is control what's down with the web?

-Dave Panzarino

'What about liberty?' you may ask -hey, this is just a thought provoking exercise! I'm not a an MBA! Maybe liberty is included in that 'all things being equal' above. See, I want to go to law school.

Technologies and Politics of Control talk:Community Portal

2013-11-12T17:42:56Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303502400

I believe the court made the correct decision. On the internet a packet is a packet no matter the technology that is used to transmit and receive it. It's a little scary to think that certain data types could have additional charges to use what was intended to be an open and free environment. The could mean that research itself would cost students money by just clicking on a link, not that we are close to that yet, but if one type of data packet can be charged a fee others would not be far behind.

Recently Comcast went after Netflix for the amount of traffic being generated, something in the ballpark 30% of internet traffic in the US. Netflix moved away from Alkami, which was paying companies like Comcast to allow it's broadcasts and then billing back Netflix as a built in cost of business. Netflix moved to a model where Netflix was trying to avoid the charges from broadband providers indicates some business are not willing to support the internet on the whole even when they perhaps should be.

Turning back to the FCC issue of running out of funds due to POTS lines being disconnected, I've always found it a deterrent to look at DSL as a means to connect to the internet due to the need to subscribe to the "voice" aspect of the setup. I haven't had a telephone line since I moved away from DSL about 4 years ago. However, the mobile market seems to be expanding and is a potential revenue giant for the FCC. The mobile market, alone, probably will not be able to generate the amount of tariff required for the FCC.

I think there is a solution to keeping the FCC's operating budget stable, a tax on internet access is not out of the question and I would not oppose it as long as the FCC stands for the people and not big business. Keeping the internet open and not permitting Comcast and other ISP's to shape internet traffic according to what you pay, in the end the tax would be less then what the ISP's would take out of the users pocket for premium service. I believe most countries that have well developed internets do charge a tax, when I lived the the UK part of my bill did have a VAT charge.

On an additional front, we need to keep a close eye on our ISPs. The FCC needs to be able to operate as a watchdog to protect the exploitation of users by the ISPs. Recently I listed to a webcast that discussed the use of Phorm (more about Phorm: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7283333.stm) by a large internet provider in the states. The plan that was discussed would give the subscriber the ability to opt out, but would have to pay more money to the ISP to opt out. This is disconcerting, basically if I'm not willing to pay to give the ISP access to my unencrypted packet for advertising dollars I have to pay them more. I pay for access to a larger community that was, from it's foundations up, was intended to be free. Is our capitalistic greed going to cause greater barriers to access what is free information today? Can we trust the FCC to do the right thing and protect citizens or will big business run the FCC by dictating it policy via the FCC?

Technologies and Politics of Control:Community Portal

2013-11-12T17:42:56Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303502400

When is a telephone call a telephone call? When you pick up the handset, dial a number and start speaking to someone? Apparently not. The FCC, which is funded by telecommunications surcharges, has held the position that voice transmitted over IP is considered information and not a phone call. Perhaps they are rethinking this decision. After all, traditional TDM infrastructure (the technology used to support calls over copper lines) is experiencing a decrease in use by consumers at a very rapid pace. Many people are converting from traditional copper lines to digital phone service or Voice over IP (VoIP) as offered by companies like Skype and Vonage. However, if voice over the internet is considered information, than why do telecommunications surcharges still apply? Apparently someone thinks they shouldn't. The following article reports of a landmark case where the courts have determined that Voice carried over the internet is information and therefore the surcharges do not apply.

[http://www.telecomlawmonitor.com/2010/02/articles/voip/federal-court-rules-that-voip-need-not-pay-access-charges/ Link to Article here: Does this bode well for the FCC?]

So what does this mean? As consumers opt out of traditional POTS lines (plain old telephony system) is the FCC at a crossroads? How do they acquire the funding necessary to support their agressive plans for a nationwide 100 squared access to the internet? It is true that a significant amount of funds will be garnered due to the American Re-Investment and Recovery Act of 2009, but unless an ongoing plan for funding exists, those funds will eventually run out and then what? Who will be left to pay for the rest? Do I smell a true and real internet tax coming on? And if so... how do we collect that tax from the foreign users and businesses who we interact with... Or will the burden be placed upon us? Thoughts anyone? D. Jodoin --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thodoris

2013-11-12T17:42:54Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303502400

ÎÎ¿Î´ÏÏÎ®, ÎºÎ±Î»Î·ÏÏÎÏÎ±. ÎÎ½Î¿Î¼Î¬Î¶Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ ÎÎ±ÏÎ¯Î± Î Î±ÏÎ±ÏÏÎ·Î³Î¿ÏÎ¿ÏÎ»Î¿Ï (user Maria paparrigopoulou) ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÎµÎ¯Î¼Î±ÏÏÎµ ÏÏÎ¼ÏÎ¿Î¹ÏÎ·ÏÎÏ ÏÏÎ¿ Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control. Î§Î±Î¯ÏÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹ ÏÎ¬ÏÎ± ÏÎ¿Î»Ï ÏÎ¿Ï Î²Î»ÎÏÏ ÏÏÎ¹ ÏÏÎ¬ÏÏÎµÎ¹ ÎºÎ¹ Î¬Î»Î»Î¿Ï ÎÎ»Î»Î·Î½Î±Ï ÏÏÎ¿ Î¼Î¬Î¸Î·Î¼Î±. ÎÎ±Î»Î® ÏÏÏÎ· Î¼Îµ ÏÎ¿ Assignment 1 ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÎºÎ±Î»Î® ÏÏÎ½ÎÏÎµÎ¹Î±.

== Geia sou! ==

Ki ego hairomai. Are you based in Greece? Let's be in touch. Good luck.

ÎÎ±Î¹, ÎµÎ¯Î¼Î±Î¹ ÏÏÎ·Î½ ÎÎ»Î»Î¬Î´Î±, Î· ÏÏÎ± ÎµÎ¯Î½Î±Î¹ 12:30 ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÏÎµÏÎ¹Î¼ÎÎ½Ï Î½Î± Î±ÏÏÎ¯ÏÎµÎ¹ ÏÎ¿ Î¼Î¬Î¸Î·Î¼Î±. Î£Î¯Î³Î¿ÏÏÎ± Î¸Î± ÎµÎ¯Î¼Î±ÏÏÎµ ÏÎµ ÎµÏÎ±ÏÎ®. ÎÎ±Î»Ï Î¼Î¬Î¸Î·Î¼Î±!

Thodoris Colovos - Course Commentary

2013-11-12T17:41:54Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303502400

Hello.

=About =

My name is Thodoris Colovos. I m an MA student at London College of Communication concentrating on critical theory in the field of cultural policy. I currently live in New York and work as a communications consultant for NGO's and Culture industry companies in Europe. I m here to learn more about the internet.

=Assignments=

==#1: Wikipedia==

old page: http://tiny.cc/oknRE

new page: http://tiny.cc/AKYGf

I chose to contribute on the wiki page about Cultural Policies of the European Union. This is a subject i am familiar with and would like to associate with my final project. Therefore, the data gathered through the habit of continuously updating the wiki may contribute towards my understanding on the subject, and the nontraditional approach i should adopt for studying the content layer of the internet. Another reason for choosing this page was the strong luck of content it presented, giving me the space to extensively expand the article.

After comparing the rules of wikipedia with the article it seemed that there was no significant breach of terms related to the neutral point of view policy on the existing text (only minor obeisant expressions signifying that the text was copied from a webpage for the promotion of cultural policies, perhaps the website of the european union) however the data presented were in many cases confusing, irrelevant with the subject and incomplete, classifying partly as an original research article. I decided to keep only text that had the potential of expansion after re-categorizing and re-positioning it. The introduction did not explain or analyze the meaning of the terminology appearing on the title so I enhanced it by breaking the subject on a basic encyclopedic level clarifying where the actual term derives from and what it stands for. I have also chose to develop a language flow that makes the article broadly accessible, avoiding assumptions and terms that are not fully explained either on the page or through a wiki or other link.
After conducting a brief research on cultural policy-making in the EU, I categorized the information found to factual and critical and distributed it accordingly. Factual information derived from data gathered by official webpages and papers (institutions, organizations and bodies) whilst critical information originated from academic writing, essays and articles available online. I continued by evaluating the core structure of the wiki and how the authors categorized the subject. It seemed an incoherent following of information that led me on deleting most parts of its structure text. The subject is part of a social development happening now. A diachronic classification was missing. I decided to re-build the contents of the page following a historical timeline starting from the origins of EU policy making and concluding with criticism reflecting the future effect of what has already happened:

1. The history and development of cultural policy-making 2. The strategy and methods that have been adopted 3. The institutions and bodies currently operating 4. Which policies exist by sector (Arts, Sports, Language) 5. The impact of cultural policies (European identity, urban regeneration, expansion of the European Union and rising criticism)

The more time i spent with the wiki page, the further i could continue categorizing the subject.

Internet based research is not easy as true facts are difficult to find. It was easier to find knowledge and opinion-based data than the actual data that articles or essays were referring to or were based on (laws,budgets,decision reports, conference notes). It became obvious to me that unlike historic non-current facts, the more one approaches today when researching the internet the less it is possible to filter effectively the information available. Neutrality of the resource material (current media articles, speeches,academic books) is difficult to establish. It is also often coming across data that constantly change or update. If this neutrality is impossible to detect, perhaps the best solution is to publish a combination of opposing opinions or the full time-based developing of an issue (this needs a constant watch on the issue and a parallel wiki update) Another important observation i made was that when establishing factual information for shifting issues the approach can only be a qualitative one as quantitative information is very often unavailable. This is important as it might be significant for defying the role of the developing information economy and its audience. When knowledge is not a necessity reality understanding may shift from fact establishing to simple currency observation.
The information added on the wiki might not be complete however its structure and new references clarify the subject following a rational line that allows users to begin conversation over content. I intend to continue research on the subject and updating the wiki, and look forward on reactions, conversations and editing from other users.

==#2:Project prospectus==

==#3:Rough draft==

=Final project=

=Contact=

Feel free to contact me and share: thodoris@thodoris.com

Thodoris Colovos - Course Commentary

2013-01-17T21:59:11Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

Regulating Speech Online

2013-01-17T21:59:03Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''March 22'''

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 884, 896-97 (1997). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, with the rise of web 2.0, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a national (and global) audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf Slides: Regulating Speech Online]

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3 due]]

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625820 David Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] (Parts I & II)
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]
* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]
* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 David Ardia, Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part III)
</onlyinclude>

==Class Discussion ==

Regarding the AutoaAdmit case, does anyone have further details on what happened with Anthony Ciolli's countersuit against the two women and their legal advisor? For further reading on cyberbullying, defamation, privacy etc. an excellent book of essays is The Offensive Internet, edited by Saul Levmore and Martha Nussbaum.[[User:Mary Van Gils|Mary Van Gils]] 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment really applies to a previous class, but you might be interested in reading about the latest counter-tactics in the struggle for a "borderless Internet" against government control in this article: [http://www.economist.com/node/18386151 Unorthodox links to the internet: Signalling dissent] [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 16:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Though the introduction to this session states that "nstead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech...", we've reached a point where intermediaries--Facebook, Google, etc--are essentially controlling online speech. Our networks have landed in private, corporate, centralized locations. I hope that we'll be adding intermediary censorship to the discussion :) [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another story in the vein of "AutoAdmit" out right now is at [http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/cut-and-die-the-web-loves-to-hate-rebecca-black-20110321-1c2tz.html 'Cut and die': the web loves to hate Rebecca Black] About a 13-year old cut-and-paste singer who has become popular on You-Tube for all the wrong reasons; she is receiving death threats via user comments and web discussions. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, in US, you have different laws for intermediary liability for speech online (sec 230) and copyright (DMCA), maybe even more. In EU, there are 4 articles in one single act governing liability of ISPs. Especially for hosting providers one specific art. 14. For those interested, here is a link to Ecomerce Directive containing (see art. 12 to 15, hosting providers art. 14) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:en:NOT]. Comparing art. 14(1)b and art. 14(2) of the EC directive with sec. 320 plus explanation of what is publisher and distributor liability from first reading, conclusion is that in EU, hosting provider would be liable under similarly as a distributor or publisher as in US. There are problems with EU legal framework and liability of ISPs and currently it is under review. If you read art. 14 you might realise what can be problem. There is no explanation of terms, such as 'actual knowledge'or 'expediously'. Or even how should 'notice and take down' procedure look like when comparing it to DMCA. It will be interesting to see how the law will change in future. Hopeully in near future:)As regard to google case in Italy, although I was aware of the issue, I did no read decision and can not say my opinion based only on the article read. However, based on my information, I would say that this was exceptional case in EU, and would not therefore make some outcome about threat in EU only based on this case.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I meant not intermediary liability, but intermediary censorship; e.g., Amazon's takedown of Wikileaks or Facebook removing Egyptian protest groups.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would follow the footsteps of so-called journalist's privilege. As the emergence of millions of amateur reporters and publishers, the conventional definition of journalist's privilege is rather obsolete now. Likewise, the act which was enacted more than a decade ago seems to not hold the effectiveness any more. There is literally a tremendous number of interactive computer service providers and we have witnessed numerous side-effects burgeoning with the widespread of the online communities. Would it be still okay to give immunity to these providers? --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 19:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Yu_Ri Yu Ri,] I am disappointed that we ran out of time in class to have the full discussion you propose. Perhaps we can continue in this forum.

From my perspective [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] protecting internet intermediaries has had many undesirable unintended consequences. At the same time, however, it is impossible to know what today’s internet would be like if Section 230 were not made law and not have survived the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Reno v. ACLU] challenge. The internet and the offline world for that matter would surely be significantly different.

One thing that probably would have happened is that large numbers of companies that today provide internet based intermediary services would not be in the business because of the costs incurred due of the threat of law suits.

What if one of those companies that decided the costs related to the risk of litigation was too high was google? What if google’s investors decided they could make more money by investing in some other industry and chose not to fund google? How different would our world be? I think of things in the real world that might not be the same.

For instance, what might have happened in Egypt if [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20030485-503543.html Wael Ghonim] had not found a job at google and followed a different career path? Would the changes we are seeing all across the globe have happened if the social networking tools used so effectively by dissidents never came into existence without Section 230?

Very interesting questions and I’d like to hear your thoughts and those of others in the class. Thanks! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A very interesting study on 'Four Phases of Internet Regulation'. It talk about how the concept of internet regulation has changed since its early day to present times:
[http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/faculty-workshops/palfrey.faculty.workshop.summer.2010.pdf Four Phases of Internet Regulation][[User:syedshirazi|SyedShirazi]] 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In professor Lessig’s [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Chapter 12: Free Speech] he makes the well reasoned proposal that a system to protect children from unwanted speech on the internet would be to implement the browser tag <H2M>. I well understand his reasoning and it makes a great deal of sense. In suggesting how to accomplish universal acceptance of this technique professor Lessig says, “This is the role for government.”

Now I haven’t finished his book and knowing how well he backs his arguments I won’t be surprised to find he has tackled this question but until I get there I must ask: Do we really want government to get into the business of legislating actual code?

Professor Lessig’s point that “code is law” teaches us that the code writer can be the secret hand that regulates us by the choices made when programs are written. For instance when we are in a virtual environment we are limited in what we can do substantially by the choices that the programmer has made when she wrote the program. I think it is the legitimate role of government to protect us from the undue influence of the coder, especially when the software involved might be used by an intermediary who has been granted special status by [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Communications Decency Act § 230.]

I’m not so sure that we should carry the logic to the next level by saying that it is government’s role to actually dictate aspects of code. Classmates: what do you think? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently during the height of confusion about the disasters in Japan there was a case involving the posting of a highly offensive Youtube video by a UCLA student that at best insensitively mocked Asian peers. While the school chose not to take disciplinary action claiming that her video did not violate school policy, the community at large took action by shunning and harassing her to the point she withdrew from the school. UCLA is also being criticized by academics of race and gender stating that the objectification of Asians in the video is harmful and displays a deep rooted often overlooked racism that falls outside of the black/white paradigm. It has been recommended that UCLA should promote a more multicultural understanding and sensitivity by introducing mandatory courses and/or workshops. I understand how this video and the girl's views are protected as free speech regardless of how repugnant her words are, but I also find it deeply disturbing that the video went viral mainly due to morbid curiosity. A good analysis of the deeper harmful racist views and effeccts can be read here [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/22/ucla_student_s_youtube_video_illustrates_many_asian_racial_stereotypes?loc=interstitialskip UCLA Student's Youtube Video Illustrates Many Asain Racial Stereotypes]. While there may be no legal action that can be taken toward a video of this nature, we as a culture unwittingly make it popular and far reaching through multiple views and backlash videos which is something I think we should all think about before we click on that next "shocking" link. With such ease of access to such content on the internet I think that there comes a personal responsibility as to what goes viral for the wrong reasons, and what just gets lost in the far corners of the internet. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This article from the NY Times takes issues from the AutoAdmit case even farther. It deals with teens, sexually explicit photos and texting. Again, what speech is protected? What is not? What about cyberbulling among teens as opposed to adults? Is there any kind of legal relief that the target can seek? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27sexting.html
--[[User:SCL|SCL]] 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Slides for today's class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf]

Powerpoint Slides from Class

2013-01-17T21:59:00Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

Feb 1/8 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSociety_Feb8_part_I.pdf Slides: Paradigms for Studying the Internet]

Feb 15 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyFeb15.pdf Slides: New Economic & Business Models]

Feb 22 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyFeb22.pdf Slides: Internet Economics & Business + Collective Decision Making]

March 1 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:IS2011-3.1.11-New_and_Old_Media.pdf Slides: New and Old Media, Participation, and Information]

March 8 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011slides_2011-03-08.pdf Slides: Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech]

March 22 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-3.22.11-Regulating_Speech_Online.ppt.pdf Slides: Regulating Speech Online]

March 29 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyMarch29.pdf Slides: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]

April 5 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-4.5.11-Copyright.pdf Slides: Copyright in Cyberspace]

April 12 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyApril12.pdf Slides: Control and Code: Privacy Online]

April 19 - [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyApril19.pdf Slides: Internet and Democracy]

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2013-01-17T21:58:59Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''January 25'''

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change, and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==

Part I

To frame the issues we will be talking about in this class and to get the discussion going, we'll start with the recent controversy involving [http://wikileaks.ch Wikileaks]. Take some time to read through the articles below. Come to class prepared to answer the following questions and to pose some questions of your own.

* What is Wikileaks? Is it a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?
* Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
* What kind of arguments would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What was the U.S.'s (and the world's) response to Wikileaks' disclosure of diplomatic cables?
* What are the legal and/or free speech implications involved in the decision by Amazon to stop hosting the Wikileaks site?
* What do you think the debate concerning Wikileaks shows about the nature of the Internet?

Part II

* What are the most significant changes associated with the spread of digital technologies?
In a few sentences, please offer 2-3 examples in the Class Discussion section below or be prepared to offer them during class.

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==
* [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/ MIT Technology Review: Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks]
* [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703785704575643431883607708.html# Wall Street Journal: To Publish Leaks Or Not to Publish?]
* [http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/03/the_net_s_soft_underbelly/index.html Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins]
* [http://gigaom.com/2010/12/04/like-it-or-not-wikileaks-is-a-media-entity/ GigaOm: Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks Guardian: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice]

== Optional Readings ==
* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong EFF: Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary]
* [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/ Wired: Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation]
* [http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/30/wikileaks Salon: WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets]
* [http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/ Clay Shirky: Wikileaks and the Long Haul]
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/julius-baer-bank-and-trust-v-wikileaks Citizen Media Law Project: Julius Baer Bank and Trust v. Wikileaks]
* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2010/12/08/radio-berkman-171/ MediaBerkman: Wikileaks and the Information Wars]
* [http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-02/opinion/mackinnon.wikileaks.amazon_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-lieberman-youtube?_s=PM:OPINION Rebecca MacKinnon: WikiLeaks, Amazon and the new threat to internet speech]
* Coverage of the cables themselves by the NYT [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html/], Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables], Der Spiegel [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
''The most significant changes and challenges brought on by digital technologies.''

- Your ideas here...

The ways in which these mediums have changed how we relate to each other can certainly be seen to have both positive and negative connotations. In the age of 'instant information" we should question how much is worthy of our attention on first blush, and what is really noise and a waste of time. Those that manage the digital medium as opposed to it managing them are the real winners in the availability of opportunities.

However some of the most positive aspects can be seen in our new ability to see other countries through the lens of information from citizens themselves and this has inspired a higher spirit of collaboration the world over.

The uprising in Iran a couple of years ago, would never have gotten the world attention that it did before the advent of the social mediums that allowed the demonstrations to be viewed by millions. The Haiti earthquake (and many other disasters) and the quickness of the response was helped by the instant donation portals that were set up to facilitate monies where they were most required. Doctors collaborating around the world on cases and learning from those experiences is another example of how we grow our cultures for the good.

A "virtual choir" of 12 different countries bringing singers together showed a true spirit of co-operation among peoples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7o7BrlbaDs

We have choices in how we use all these mediums and yes there will always be an disturbing and dark aspects to it but looking at all the possibilities we have a world of substantive opportunities. --camcloughlin

The most significant change associated with digital technologies is precisely how pervasive the changes are. These technologies affect the manner and effect of how we conduct ourselves in society: the way we read and learn, are entertained, communicate, interact professionally and personally, and express ourselves. As such much of our existing laws and norms need to be rethought, reinterpreted, and rewritten. This sort of technological change has happened before (i.e. printing press or radio) but never at such a scale and speed.

To focus on these digital technologies specifically, the biggest impacts come from their reach, social nature, and longevity. First, due to being replicable and instantaneous, a person or group using digital technologies can reach a massive audience with their message, around the world, through many channels. Second, given the ability to continuously publish and others to respond, over time a single message can grow into a dialogue which can grow into a living social conversation, and ultimately coordinated action. Third, the ability now exists to have a permanent, discoverable, and recorded conversation. These are all tremendous changes to the way societies function. --[[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 13:08, 25 January 2011 (PST)

The evolution of digital technology is much like a hot war. As the Developer or Engineer creates, the digital Guerrilla works to free the technology. The greater the advance of the tools made available to the masses it becomes more and more difficult to protect an idea. One could say that ultimately the ideas are improved by the unconstrained "testing" digital liberator/Hackers subject digital creations to. --[[User:Buie|Buie]] 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Improvements in digital technologies and the pace at which they are happening are making it increasingly more difficult for companies to innovate and compete. Investing in research initiatives are at the forefront while still trying to devote resources to building that next biggest thing that will reach the largest number of users.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the biggest changes associated with digital technologies have to do with communication. Everything from the way we interact with each other on a social level to the way that businesses and governments are conducted has been changed with the advancements of digital technology. More time is spent communicating digitally than in person; people are spending more time in online communities than their physical communities. The world is rapidly becoming a smaller place; it’s easier, cheaper, and faster to communicate with people around the world by email, texting, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, ect. You can instantly exchange ideas/knowledge with people and broadcast your opinions. Furthermore, there is more pressure to keep up with the rapidly changing communication technologies (for social or business purposes) for fear of being left behind. [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 19:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital technology not only changes how we get information, but how we relate as individuals, how companies do business and communicate with customers, employees, and investors, and how citizens relate and interact with their governments. Other have commented on privacy and censorship concerns, but the effect on business and the challenges a business faces with this communication and information boom has left many corporations scrambling. If incorrect information is disseminated on the web, a business is not as free as an individual to respond (if it can even do so quickly enough). Outdated government regulation enacted before the digital world was created can work to restrict how a company responds or has dialogue with the misinformed disseminators.

“Today we can influence each other more easily than ever before because our media is digital, it can reach anything that has a screen. And nearly anything with a screen can also be published from — we have a two way media.” [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/will-a-fragmented-media-lead-to-a-flowering-of-culture/971]

In thinking about the Internet as a medium, I believe the most profound changes derived from the shift to digital media is the introduction of a communication stream that is now (1) highly fragmented, (2) immediate, and (3) conversational in nature.

# We’ve evolved from a finite and more easy to regulate roster of tens/hundreds of traditional news media sources, to billions of websites. Today, the average citizen has a public voice, forcing us to challenge our notions of what is considered “journalism.” There are both opportunities (i.e., innovative thought and talent can emerge) and challenges (i.e., inundation, how to regulate, varied levels of credibility, etc.) inherent in this kind of landscape.
# Additionally, the pace of media consumption has become extremely rapid. We’ve become a culture that is accustomed to the instant accessibility of information.
# Finally, media is now social. The concept of “wiki”-based information sources means that we can interact with the information we consume, and the viral nature of the Internet lends to an ease of content ‘shareability’. Media communication is no longer a one-way stream. -- [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the most significant challenges we face moving forward with regard to digital technology is the security. Not just private citizens but governments and corporations around the world are becoming more heavily dependent on it. Consequences of any major digital disaster (i.e. caused by cyber-terrorism or any unexpected failure) could be severe to an unimaginable level as the digital world gets more complex and interdependent within. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Edwardshinp regarding security. It's not just an issue of security of financial data for transactions, but we are looking at national security, corporate espionage, etc. Anything where we're engaging in the sharing of information. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the most significant challenges is defining what constitutes privacy of users. Facebook continually redefines the concept of what information is private for its users. As we get more social and increases in attempts by online organizations to bring a more personal experience to the user, this will continue to be a challenge. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As dreed07 said, I think the same. PRIVACY. I would say lack of privacy. ([[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 08:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

* [http://www.google.org/flutrends/ Google Flu Trends]

Google has stuck into out lives quite firmly. I mean, than Google predict something better than government entities (CDC) just by running an algorithm and analyzing few searches... On some level that is the best example of how dependent on the Internet we became. I am not saying that's a bad thing, people before me told the same thing about electricity. Times are changing and that is a progress none the less. But shouldn't we be a little more careful, stop for a second and have a look on what we were actually doing for the last 20 years? Can the Internet be our own Frankenstein monster? :) --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We've talked about how an organization such as Wikileaks scores points for transparency by throwing [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/12/05/truth-is-not-enough/ "grit"] in the government machine, but I'm also impressed by what ''is'' officially available online. Old classmates and I fondly recall hours spent on state-wide judiciary searches that revealed uppity prep school teachers as felons, perverts and drunks--and sometimes explained mysterious classroom absences. Clickable property records: liens, takings and all, immortalize for peekers embarrassing proof of habitual poor decisions, or just a temporary rough patch. And lest anyone forget that accountability means everybody, constituents can roam the virtual "halls of shame" of de-certified police officers.

As for a challenge presented by digital media, it seems very easy to become absorbed by myriad micro-tasks (i.e. micro-blogging) of dubious value that sap time and productivity. About a year ago, I sat in on a conference at Yale Law. Up in the nosebleed section, I had a decent view of the panelists onstage, as well as about 70 hunched, frenetic Tweeters in between. Having myself never Tweeted nor been Tweeted at, I was puzzled as to what they were so furiously punching into their laptops, pausing only when a pod of genial-looking sperm whales appeared and temporarily halted operations. Months later, I happened upon a slew of the Tweeters' work and was disappointed. Each was responsible for hours and hundreds of blurbs that amounted to little more than scores of parallel transcriptions of the entire day's worth of speakers. Never mind that the conference was streamed live online, archived and outlined in bullet points, nor the fact that many of the Twits were Tweeting at one another. At best, it was an exercise in the sillies; at worst, a mass lapse in auditorium etiquette. --[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Social networking has opened a new level of communications that no one would have ever dreamed of. I believe it is a tremendous blessing that has and will continue to change our world. It has opened up nations that otherwise would have been totally secluded and shut-in. But this is a new era. An era where nations can now protest and receive support and empathy from other nations. Right now, as we speak we are witnessing history in the making. We are part of a revolution that we have only read about in history textbooks.

Egypt is a prime example that happens to be in the forefront of our minds. We are seeing a nation change and evolve. Whether for good or for worse, we are all witnesses. We are watching a government crumble right before our eyes; and the Internet is playing a monumental role in this!

It is our responsibility to nurture and protect this instrument of progress and change. We have a mechanism that has the ability to shrink the world. We now can convey messages that once were deemed unfathomable and impossible to distribute. Of course, governments want a position of control over such a tool; but like our forefathers we cannot allow that. Just like they defended their freedom of speech, we must defend ours too. It is the same principle with a modern twist. Instead of the printing press, it is now blogs. Instead of town hall meetings, it is now twitter. Like everything thing else in our ever evolving world the press has become faster and more efficient. The media has now modernized and caught up with the times.
--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

''Please use this space for comments/discussion you would like to share with the rest of the class.''

* [http://pressthink.org/2010/07/the-afghanistan-war-logs-released-by-wikileaks-the-worlds-first-stateless-news-organization/ The World's First Stateless News Organization]
* [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html Russia's Own WikiLeaks Takes Off]
The idea of "Stateless News Organizations" seems to be getting around... In my country though it's a little less sophisticated... --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Rosen’s prediction of the public’s reaction to the release of the Afghanistan War logs was spot on. These logs, in my opinion, did not receive enough attention or create the amount of outrage they deserved. Because they exposed a distasteful problem, an uncomfortable public chose to turn a blind eye. --[[User:Jedmonds|Jedmonds]] 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The economic impact of the Internet and digital technologies can be significant. Outsourcing job functions to countries outside the United States for instance, was facilitated in part by the ability of the Internet to deliver real time data across the globe. IP telephony, high speed video and data transmitted on the Internet allowed for workers to be “virtual”, anywhere in the world. This created cost savings and efficiencies for corporations while fueling growth in emerging countries. Domestically, this has lead to displaced workers and job losses across many fields. --Earboleda

“Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?” IMO Wikileaks is none of the above. What Wikileaks can be described as is one of several recent examples of the ways in which communications technologies are fundamentally changing the nature of life on the planet. It’s part of an incomplete definition that will be building in complexity for some time into the future.

We live in an environment today in which the sum total of human experience virtually floats in the air around us. Need directions, google it. Want to see what it will look like when you turn the corner at the next intersection, click to a 360 degree view. Wish to know what historical figure may have lived in that ancient building by the park, if there isn’t today, sometime in the near future there will be a website, wiki, webcam, historical archive, building plans, public utility schematics, images of deeds, mortgage documents, tax information, holographic immersive experiences …

Piece by piece we are collectively constructing a virtual copy of the world. More than a copy, it contains layers from this moment stretching into the past and other contextual information impossible to obtain a mere few years ago.

I worry when it is said that Assange is not "about letting sunlight into the room so much as about throwing grit in the machine." [http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/26875/?a=f]. With that kind of philosophy it seems the opportunity to cause harm is far greater than that for good.

If on the other hand Wikileaks becomes or spawns places of free and open communications where transparency reigns and people of conviction can become free to disclose information that brings light into what today are dark crevices, we’ll all be better off. If not, we need to worry.

We need also worry about as Brandon Palmen says, “an incomplete and skewed portrayal of fact.” [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2010/12/05/truth-is-not-enough/] Actions that result from reliance on the incomplete picture will have unintended consequences. This is true whether a skewed view is intentional or as a function of where we are with respect to construction of the new virtual copy of our world.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks? The truth is that there will soon be many versions of Wikileaks with many different degrees of completeness ranging along a spectrum from purely altruistic to undeniably evil. It will be up to the individual and the establishment to decide on which version of reality we each choose to believe and act upon. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would contribute to what my classmates have alredy said about “Is Wikileaks a journalism organization? A terrorist organization? A criminal syndicate?”.

I am sure there are number of people who would go for first, second and third option. It depends from which point of view we are looking at wikileaks. Sometimes term whistleblower or some intermediary is enough. I am sure that sometimes it is very questionable and wikileaks might be regarded as a journalist. I am sure that some politicians would also use terms like terrorist or criminal.

Do we need an organization like Wikileaks?
I would answer with the question. Shoul we know about wrongdoing, killing, torture, corruption and tax evasion? Should we know what is really going on like in 'Collateral murder video'?

Those are arguments for wikileaks, however to put one argument why we could be afraid sometimes is following:
“Everybody will be leaking dirt on everybody,” Rassudov [http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html]
This is what concerns me a bit. ([[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 08:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

The Wikileaks controversy is one of many examples how much the Internet has changed the entire world. I am sure I will develop more ideas about regulating or not regulating what is out there in the Internet as this class progresses, but in terms of Wikileaks, I am still fundamentally puzzled as to how those confidential information has eventually gotten into the hands of Assange or Wikileaks from the first place. My point is if the government wants to protect certain information, it is the government's own responsibility to do so via strict prevention measures. And I suspect that this fundamentally has nothing to do with the control of the Internet or digital media. You can't just blame and impose everything on Wikileaks because it was simply living up to its whole purpose of establishment--exposing certain types of political information to the public as a new digital medium (in this respect, I don't see any difference among Wikileaks, WSJ or NYT). I definitely do think that some of the information released through Wikileaks were inappropriate and damaging to the national security, which ultimately is not in the best interest of the American people. I support the government's non-disclosure of certain information for national interest and safety. One should not assume that government transparency is always desirable and healthy (as Assange does seem to believe so), even in a democratic society. However, imposing anything on Wikileaks, whether constitutionally legal or illegal (i.e. Lieberman's actions), is just not the right way to handle the "mess." Take out the roots of the problem whatever they are--not Wikileaks. --[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of months post-Wikileaks, and we're already seeing various similar organizations and entities (and even instances of leaking) crop up; while I don't support all of WikiLeaks' leaks necessarily, I do support the overall idea of information leaking; and in the case of, for example, the Palestine Papers (recently leaked to Al Jazeera), think that it can be very effective in demonstrating hypocrisy in governments.

I also take serious issue with the handling of WikiLeaks by American companies Amazon, Mastercard, PayPal, EasyDNS, and Tableau. All acted under potential pressure from Sen. Joe Lieberman, and the vast majority gave "copyright infringement" as their excuse, more or less. If we excuse this behavior in the instance of WikiLeaks, then we're headed down a slippery slope: Do we then excuse similar intermediary censorship when levied against a human rights organization? [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I consider as the major challenge for E-industry the adoption of basic ethical standards/rules to be applicable for and followed by each provider as well as an user. Those rules should go far beyond and should be independent from a governance scope given by a local jurisdiction (something alike Wikipedia core content policies). The element of self-regulation emanated by the industry itself might be (a) an effective interpretation tool for numberless requests imposed for pursue of e-industry in particular jurisdiction (see link), (b) could prevent or diminish negative effects of state regulation or attempts of over-regulation or could help to constructively handle occurrence of case like Wikeleaks. Further, Internet as the major source of information and widely used communication tool has changed significantly quality and content of communication all over the world. This new phenomena already has and will have an overwhelming social and cultural impact on mankind and human interaction.

In my opinion, if we use the standard definition of what constitutes a "media organization" based on U.S. Code Title 2, Section 1602, a person or entity engaged in disseminating information to the general public through a newspaper, magazine, other publication, radio, television, cable television, or other medium of mass communication; then Wikileaks is just that and would be entitled to protections as such. I don't agree with the way Wikileaks is carrying out it's mission on a philosophical level. There are other means that could be used to promote and encourage transparency in government without endangering people's lives. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is a content provider. They are not terrorists because they do not attempt to destroy or disrupt the Internet. They are simply providing content which some people find objectionable. If we set aside the question of how they obtained the information then the remaining question is whether they have a legal or moral right to disseminate it. WikiLeaks is not based in the U.S. so it is not subject to U.S. laws. They are not publishing credit card or social security numbers. They are not publishing copyrighted or proprietary material. They are editorializing, but that is still the prerogative of a free press. They at least showed some self-restraint by selectively publishing what they felt to be newsworthy and redacted sensitive information that could bring harm to others. They are not in the same league as the New York Times. They are not even writing their own stories. But they are taking an editorial position by selecting which content to provide, which gives them some claim to being a journalism organization.
-Chris Sura

Just wanted to add a comment to today’s in-class discussion which did not make it in due to time constraints. The seminar ended on the question of what measures the US government could or should (from a legal and ethical perspective) take in dealing with the leak of classified diplomatic data via Wikileaks. The question was predicated on the (generous) assumption that the leaked material had little to no serious material impact on US security or diplomatic interests. An obvious caveat to that assumption is the fact that only a small number of the diplomatic cables in question have be released thus far, preventing us from knowing the full impact the leaks may have in the future. Perhaps a less obvious caveat is that it is extremely difficult for those of us without diplomatic credentials to tell what sort of damage has been done in terms of the US’s international diplomatic relations, where the effects may be more subtle and less obvious to the public; certainly, there seems to be little evidence of direct damage to the US itself… however, that does not necessarily mean the released materials are without serious impact. A number of pundits, Andrew Sullivan for one example, have ascribed to Wikileaks cables a prominent (though perhaps not a driving) role in the so-called “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia which ousted president Ben Ali and toppled his government this January. Obviously these events are of enormous import to Tunisians around the globe, and may have a significant effect on Africa and the Arab world, and thus geo-politics as a whole. While the potential future ramifications for US foreign policy are difficult to calculate, in terms of immediate impact it should be noted the president Ben Ali was considered to be an important US ally in North Africa, and his ousting may have consequences for the US government’s anti-terrorism efforts in that region. (That is not to say that the overall impact will be negative; one hopes that the Jasmine Revolution will work out for the best for both the US government and, perhaps more importantly, the people of Tunisia. The effects, however, remain to be seen.) -BrandonAndrzej

Here are links to the topic being discussed on Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/tunisias-wikileaks-revolution.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/a-wikileaks-revolution.html

During the discussion that ended the class (26-Jan-11) several argued that officials of the US Government were justified in taking actions against private citizens and organizations in response to Wikileaks. This bothers me to the point of losing sleep. It is outrageous that officials of the US government felt it within their power, without any legal due process, to use the power invested in them by the people to intimidate private organizations into taking steps to deny access to information once it had become readily available. Far beyond “a terminal case of hubris” as described by John Naughton in his article in the Guardian, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks], US senator Joseph Lieberman’s actions to intimidate private organizations including Amazon and Paypal into removing Wikileaks content is an outrageous and possibly illegal abuse of the power given to him when he was elected to represent a small segment of the US population in the national congress.

Regardless of whether his intentions could be viewed by some a noble, we live in a society that is ruled by law. There are processes to be followed. Senator Lieberman availed himself of some of those processes when he filed Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination (SHIELD Act) [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/#].We should all be incredulous that beyond this Senator Lieberman used his positions in congress to directly contact commercial organizations intimidating them with veiled threats that the US government would use its power against them should they not comply to his personal vision of how they should conduct their private business. There are numerous judicial and administrative options available through legal due process of US Law that Senator Lieberman could have used. The fact that he did not is an outrageous abuse of power.

Senator Lieberman’s actions are just the tip of the iceberg of official reaction that was untoward and possible illegal. The actions of agencies such as the State Department - who are invested by the citizenry with even less official power than a US Senator - in contacting private individuals and intimidating them to not exercise their freedom of expression are even more outrageous. The gentleman in class who said that even his company was contacted and threatened should shout to all of us how far we have traveled down a slippery slope with regards to the fundamental rights upon which US society is based. The fact that there seemed to be acquiescence to these concepts during the class discussion, especially taking place in a building that is just steps away from the Harvard Law School, is of great concern to me.

What is your opinion? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 12:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to the discussion of: Do we need an organisation like Wikileaks?

I agree that the ethos behind Wikileaks of exposing unethical government behaviour is a necessary component in establishing accountability; however, the longer-term implications of Wikileaks are (potentially) opposed to the initial aim. If governments go to extreme lengths to protect information from whistleblowers then this will lead to compartmentalisation of information and a decline in cooperation between agencies. Wikileaks may catalyse the creation of a political culture that is suspicious of information sharing where diplomacy cannot operate effectively.

A question posed on the Guardian’s 'Live Q&A with Julian Assange' by JAnthony aimed to ask Julian Assange whether Wikileaks should be held accountable for hampering diplomatic efforts – went unanswered.

“I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US. In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.

My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function. ” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 22:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

-----

Hi you all. Just saw that on the NYT, it might interest you:
The New York Times on dealing with Assange and the secrets -- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 [[User:Coelhol|lu coelho]]

In my opinion one of the most significant changes associated with the Internet and digital technologies is the huge content availability and the low cost to get information. This “revolution“ is also redefining: monetary transaction (as we can see through the massive growth of e-commerce websites due to low cost of transaction and low cost of distribution), social relationship (how users are sticky to facebook, twitter, blogs, etc…), communication (high level of interaction through “new”channels such as email, voice over Internet protocol, instant messages, etc…), entertainment (access to a huge library content = long tail. E.g. Netflix, Hulu, Youtube), etc…We are definitely in the beginning of this revolution since the value proposition the internet can add has still much room to grow. [[User:DriFaria|Adriana Torii]]

My feeling is that Wikileaks is an unstable medium for providing an essential watchdog function overseeing government activity. There is a need for some kind of independant body that checks the scope of the governments autonomy, but conceding this responsibility to a rogue, pirate entity does seem to legitimize some of the governments concern over jeopardizing the safety of individuals who should not be sacrificed for the errors of those higher ranking officials overstepping the intended restrictions on their authority and influence. Unfortunately I cannot offer much in the way of a practical solution for balancing off the dangers on either end of the spectrum in the Wikileaks situation. The slope seems to slip down in both directions. Smudge24

Thinking about how the internet has changed our society two things immediately come to mind. First, from the perspective of an average US consumer, I feel that there is undeniable evidence that suggests that the internet has flattened the global marketplace. Goods from all areas of the world are now just an effortless click away. Even our methods of shopping have drastically changed from typical in-store shopping and mail-order catalogs, to instant online price comparisons of the same good between hundreds of online retailers. This continual instant access to nearly any good has shifted our societies towards more hasty and instant desires - in a way, I argue, we have all become more impatient. Things that at one point could have been considered expendable extras are now at the center of entire business models. Second, I have given some thought to the way in which the medical community has been changed with the advent of the internet. Specifically, I find it revolutionary how access to medical information has been simplified to be understood by nearly anyone with a mouse and a keyboard. The ability to pre-diagnose oneself and have instantaneous access to potential medical solutions is something that could prove revolutionary in countries that are in early development stages. Furthermore, learning medical terminology and processes (i.e. similar to med school) is simplified and made much less expensive - allowing a lower boundary to entry into the field. [[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe our government has gone after the wrong target. They should be after the source of the leaks. Wikileaks is just an emissary and a conduit of information. The government wants to shoot the messenger while they should be instead hunting for the origin of the message. If they have such a gripe on people exchanging information, they should attempt to find the actually leak and plug it. If the government is successful in stopping Wikileaks, there will be another messenger in its wake eagerly conveying information from a leak. Until the original leak has been extinguished, the government will continue to have it's information published and made public.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• The internet has created a virtual world for people, a global village, as coined by Marshall McLuhan. Where sharing of thoughts and ideas take place at a completely new level. Where your audience is not specified or fixed. Freedom to put your ideas out there and the freedom to express your opinion or give your take on the thoughts put down by others, without having to disclose your identity, is something only the internet gives you. The internet allows the ideas and thoughts put forward by people to be judged not by their physical appearance or their accomplishments but in a much unbiased, to-the-point way. It is also one of the fastest, cheapest and most widespread means of communication. This is the age of freedom of communication, everyone is entitled to their individual thoughts and opinions, and the internet is their diary, although not that personal.
• Businesses are run using technologies such as electronic mails and video-conferencing, which are continuously outdoing themselves and introducing better features. It is a platform for people to express themselves freely and that freedom will be curbed once the government decides to get involved. Just like every school, home or playground has a big bully, the government is a big bully in a country. Everyone thinks not just twice but a million times before taking up an issue against the government. In my opinion, wiki leaks has endeavored to take up something that no other form of media would have the guts to publish, and not just put the information out there but also follow through with it. If the American government has nothing to hide then why react defensively. If they had not made a big issue out of these releases people would have most probably forgotten about it in time. Their reaction itself has generated interest in the public. [[User:Karishma goenka|Karishma goenka]] 11:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the most significant changes brought on by digital technologies are:
- The possibility of transferring data through different medias.
- These technologies allow people to communicate at low cost (Skype, for example).
- The streaming video, which is changing the way people watch TV and movies.
- The videoconference, which has also been used within the Court System.
- The possibility of buying online 24 hours a day.
- Product customization (as an example, Dell allows that the client choose on line its own computer configuration).
- Immediate download of books, articles, music and films.
Regarding the challenges, I would say that piracy and unauthorized copies of ideas are problems caused by the information dissemination in the internet. Another challenge would be the fact that the digitalization of content brought a radical change in the business model. See the discussion about Apple enforcing rules on e-book publishers and also the changing occurring in the cable TV segment, due to the streaming video. ([[User:Anna|Anna]] 21:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC))

As many people pointed out above, the appearance & spread of digital technologies has affected our society in unexpected yet profound ways - from science itself to business to everyone's daily life. The trend of changes can be generally illustrated as "being closer, easier, and faster." In terms of challenges posed by these whizzy technologies, I would like to, specifically, talk about infringement of intellectual property rights. Not only is an individual's personal information stolen by a third party and misused - mostly for financial frauds, but also an inherent right to one's idea is in a great danger of being attacked and looted away. In short, what represents ourselves (our birthdates, addresses, and social security numbers) and what we give birth in this world (our thoughts, ideas, and very creation) can be and are lost in amidst of the Internet society. In this situation, I doubt whether there would be any point of insisting freedom of expression, when the expression itself is suffering from casual invasion and robbery.

<Articles>
* Identity Theft: [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/29/nyregion/identity-theft-and-these-were-big-identities.html?src=pm]
* Copyright Issue: [http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/no-easy-answers-in-the-copyright-debate/?scp=5&sq=copyright&st=Search]

--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Some people mentioned organizations and the workplace and the security concerns that follow with the increase of digital technologies. I think about the actual change in culture as well, between what's "acceptable" and "unacceptable." Most people have worked and will work at some point, and now there are avenues that are more accommodating, e.g. conference calling, telecommuting, VPN accounts, to those not physically present in the office. Even if workers have all the avenues in the world to "work" regardless of where they physically are, can it be considered "work," particularly if one's action while working away from the office creates distrust and paranoia ? In organizations where something such as telecommuting is not the norm, managers are faced with justifying to their employees why it is acceptable for some and not others to have this option. On a related note, as organizations engage in social media activity to promote their brand and organization, they are also promoting the social media brand and, perhaps inadvertently, that this is an acceptable vehicle for workplace communication.[[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

== Other Useful Links ==

Here is a link to the BBC World Service documentary ''Wikipedia at 10'' - a 22.5 minute retrospective on the occasion of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary. It covers a number of topics, some of which may be relevant to the upcoming Wikipedia editing assignment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2011/01/110111_wikipedia_at_10.shtml

Peer Production and Collaboration

2013-01-17T21:58:53Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 15'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: To make up for the snow day on February 1, tonight's class will run an extra hour, until 8:30pm.'''</div>
The free software movement is one example of a trend towards distributed volunteer networks of individuals collaborating on collective projects that were formerly the domain of the for-profit private sector. In this session, we explore how far such peer production can go in redefining the economic and social structures of modern society.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyFeb15.pdf Slides: New Economic & Business Models]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==
* Yochai Benkler, [http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/394/ News, Information and the Wealth of Networks] (watch from 8:32 to 26:07)
* Zittrain, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13 Chapter 4: The Generative Pattern]
* Joseph Reagle, [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/reagle-nrhm-special-collab-norms.html ”Be Nice”: Wikipedia Norms for Supportive Communication]

== Additional Resources==
Joseph Reagle's book: [http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/ Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia]

The following audio streams from NPR may be interesting:
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4986453 Wikipedia, Open Source and the Future of the Web]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6051103 Wikipedia Wins Users and Critics by Jenny Lawton]
* [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4506421 Wikipedia's Growth Comes with Concerns by Laura Sydell]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
Wikipedia’s norms were the most thought provoking and entertaining subjects of last weeks readings for me. The emergence of the rules of behavior for Wikipedia, many of which seem to be just as valid and useful during the non-plugged in moments of our daily life, strikes me as being as unique and interesting as the overall notion of Wikipedia it self, if not more so. Some of the basics like apology and civility are pretty standard and not overly surprising in their development. Others however, like, “Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass” are excellent, and I would like to post on my companies intranet as a new code of conduct, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass) . Of equal importance is humor as a norm. A norm which I believe if given more play in our daily (political) lives, might save lives around the globe. Such as, the, “No one cares about your garage band norm,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band). Read: "Keep yourself in perspective." Again, not to state the obvious, but I would imagine others who read this may have been struck by the attractiveness of applying these or very similar norms to our daily working environment outside of the Wikipedia world. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The pattern of emerging of a Generative System was particularly interesting. The power of the five qualities (leverage, adaptability, ease of mastery, accessibility and transferability) and the reciprocity between them allowed a better understanding of the Generative pattern and how it can influence innovation both in positive and negative ways.
Already, the emergence of a collective, collaborative generative system is apparent in diverse forms in the cyberspace. However what I found most interesting (and enthusiastically agree with) is Zittrain’s mention of how this change in the cyberspace is making general societal, cultural and political changes in the real, non-cyberspace world.
[[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.

After yesterday's meeting with a guy who has a doctorate in the field of Wikipedia, it remains unclear, or perhaps completely unanswered, whether Wikipedia, as any other entity on the market of "intellectual goods and services", should have its ultimate authority and who that authority might be. I often wonder how else I could have phrased the question on a person's native language to obtain a straightforward answer. I know one thing for sure based on years of seminar experience that if a scholar is not answering the question directly or asking for reinterpretation, he or she is probably a dilettante. Anyway, I am thankful for his marvelous answers and his efforts to take a trip to Cambridge, Massachusetts. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A common but still under-developed theme throughout the readings is a comparative look at how traditional companies are adapting to the technological and social changes brought about by the internet. As described by Zittrain and Benckler, incumbent firms are essentially undergoing a massive increase in competition from generative systems. There look to be three sorts of reaction. Some firms are treating this as a traditional attack and their strategy is to undermine the competing product based on quality (i.e. Encyclopedia Britannica vs. Wikipedia.) Others are co-opting newly-developed methods and changing or developing new products (Google’s embrace of Linux to create Android and drive search revenue.) A third set is building whole new businesses on top of the generative processes (IBM’s extension of open-source software into services.) [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 22:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Listening to, and reading, various pieces on Wikipedia I am struck by the amount of effort that Jimmy Wales seems to put into promoting the idea of Wikipedia as, to paraphrase, "a close-knit community of dedicated users" with emphasis on user reputation and his role as "benevolent dictator", and distancing himself from the more "democratic" (read: anonymous contributors) aspects of the site which (I assume) are generally the first things that come to most peoples' minds when Wikipedia is mentioned. I wonder if this attitude was always a core part of the site's conception, or whether it was developed in response to outside criticism of the encyclopedia’s (lack of) credibility. Or if it is merely an accurate description of how the site has evolved... I would hazard to guess that Wikipedia, despite what Mr. Wales may say, is *both* a close-knit community *and* a conglomeration of faceless, unorganized (naturally organizing?) "ants"; I doubt the site could survive without both aspects. I am also struck by the parallel between this view and the criticism of Wikipedia skeptics: they see "peer review" being essential, where a "peer" is a responsible member of the academic community, while Mr. Wales sees "peer review" as equally essential, only with "peer" defined as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community. I wonder that seems to occur to no one that the "Wikipedia community" (let alone the "faceless ants") might very well contain those self-same learned academics who compose and edit articles for Britanica. And if companies are hiring PR agents to "protect" their image on Wikipedia, then I wonder why University faculties have not taken it upon themselves to jointly, publicly venture into Wikipedia to improve the quality of the articles found there in. Surely, after 10 years we should have started to take this thing seriously.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What has struck me most about the readings from this week has been the innate desire of most people to help and be helpful. "Be Nice" was particularly interesting because of how thorough the author was in examining these behaviors; I've never read social theory like that before and it's great to get a good foundation to start working from. However, beyond the obvious example of the Wikipedia community, there are dozens of other communities and companies that I did not realize were taking advantage of people's urge to contribute constructively, including the importance of peer reviews for sites like Amazon and Yelp, and the adoption of consumer-generated innovations by companies like LEGO. The article from Business Week, "The Power of Us," contained one quote, from Yochai Benkler, natch, that really caught my attention: "The economic role of social behavior is increasing." Today, consumer input is not just useful, it's almost mandatory in order for a company to be successful. This made me consider what Hollywood and the record and publishing industries are doing with themselves. They have been referenced in nearly ever reading we've had so far as the industry most affected by the easy sharing of information via the Internet, and yet not one article has discussed what that industry is doing to counter that damage. Is this a simple omission by these authors, or has the industry not responded at all? [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 3:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

McKensey has conducted annual surveys the past several years on companies' use of web 2.0 in various ways. This year's report is on its web page at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/The_rise_of_the_networked_enterprise_Web_20_finds_its_payday_2716. Interesting to see the number of companies reporting increased number of successful innovations and decreased product development costs when fully utilizing the web. After reading this week's assignments, I went back to re-read this article and wondered why it had not impressed me as much on my first read-through. [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)]]

As for the books of this month, I am reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinomics Wikinomics] by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Tapscott Don Tapscott] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_D._Williams Anthony D. Williams] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Comes_Everybody Here Comes Everybody] by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky Clay Shirky]. Coincidentally, these two books describe and reveal amazing aspects of peer collaboration and its consequences. Regarding the mass collaboration's economic effects, the Goldcorp Challenge can be deemed a symbolic case. To summarize a long story behind the success of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldcorp Goldcorp], sending an SOS to people outside of the company significantly contributed to discovery of new gold mines and boosted its financial growth. In a common sense, showing any sign of a company in a trouble is looked as a disaster in business management. Nonetheless, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_McEwen Rob McEwen], at then the CEO of Goldcorp Inc., risked asking for a help and announced the Goldcorp Challenge to look for undeveloped mineral properties; and it worked out incredibly well. These books are absolutely recommended for someone who is looking for a detailed explanation on our class topic. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 17:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for Wikipedia and so little about Academia as we've been hearing and reading so far. It could probably mean that there is a clash of ambitions between scholars and free lancers. Each of us has attempted to measure the intellectual climate, sort of speak, in the area of our interests and now we have formed our reports and opinions about which no body really cares. Our opinions are only for the purpose of this course, not for the purpose of creation of policy, so as opinions of millions of others who attempted to make changes to Wikipedia but lost their rights due to lack of authority. This is what ultimately matters the most as Chris Anderson is simply begging the question on [[NPR]] about the efficiency of the review process: a review by three fellows with a doctorate versus a review by the bunch of scholars with degrees from the university of life is the quantitative approach. The qualitative approach perhaps, not of the major concern but participation is. Ok, an average user might say, the participation will build a virtual community that could educate itself after time. Well, good luck with that virtual degree, virtual job, and virtual personal life, an average scholar might say. The reality just does not work that way and fiction should not be a part of it. The web governing organization, as Henry Jenkins describes in his article "Science Fiction and Smart Mobs" [http://www.technologyreview.com/web/13053/page1/], remains unofficial but its possible function is sketched out in the Ellis's book "Global Frequency"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Frequency]. The real Wikipedia agents however, unlike agents of "Global Frequency", are unable to enforce the policy and contribute their intelligence to the real society. Then, the question rises why we even considering Wikipedia as a model of a wider web space a proper control of which we are attempting to establish? --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As I was searching for materials related to Prof. Zittrain's Generativity theory, I found quite interesting websites that might help other classmates who want to better understand this term.
*[http://ssrn.com/abstract=847124 Zittrain, Jonathan, The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, p. 1974, May 2006; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 28/2006; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006/1]
*[http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/09/future-of-the-internet-symposium-generative-end-hosts-vs-generative-networks.html 'Future of the Internet Symposium: Generative End Hosts vs. Generative Networks?' posted by Barbara van Schewick]
In particular, I was intrigued by the double natures of generativity of the Internet. According to Zittrain's explanation, generativity - the platform for creation and innovation - also possesses threats in itself (e.g. widespread of viruses and other badwares). Would it be possible to maintain generativity without compromising to reduce malicious codes floating around the digital world? --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
Chris Anderson: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/people.html People Power]

Business Week: [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938601.htm The Power of Us]

Nasa: [http://clickworkers.arc.nasa.gov/top Clickworkers Study]
* the link to the NASA Clickworkers Study seems to be broken. Here is a link to the [http://www.nasa.gov/open/plan/peo.html program's home page] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yochai Benkler's Seminal Work on Peer Production: [http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html Coase's Penguin]

Jimbo Wales: [http://webcast.oii.ox.ac.uk/?view=Webcast&ID=20050711_76 Talk on the Wikipedia Community]

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2013-01-17T21:58:49Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 1'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: Due to snow in Cambridge, class is canceled today. To make up for the cancellation, we'll be adding an hour to each of the next two class sessions (February 8 and 15).'''</div>
Before we can even begin exploring the who's, what's, and why's -- we need to answer the critical question of '''how.''' Indeed, the phrase "studying the web" could embrace a staggering world of possible routes to explore, even before beginning to examine its relationship with society and culture. We need something to guide us through this massive field of (very interesting!) foxholes, and link the ideas we encounter into a consistent piece. We need some kind of structure to allow us to ''understand'' what we are looking at, the same way a chemist thinks of things in terms of atoms and molecules, or a philosopher can think about things in terms of schools of thought.

This class will propose and develop one framework for the web, which will structure both the discussion and topic matter covered in the course, as well as the methodology that you should apply to your assignments.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSociety_Feb8_part_I.pdf Slides: Paradigms for Studying the Internet]

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks] (Read pages 379-396. The rest of this chapter expands the discussions of each layer in more detail, if you want to read more about them)

* [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace]

* [http://www.cluetrain.com Chris Locke, Doc Searls & David Weinberger, Cluetrain Manifesto] (just the manifesto)

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Jack Goldsmith & Tim Wu, Digital Borders]

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/ Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet - Chapters 1 & 2]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Links ==

For people interested in a more technical primer on the architecture of the web, how email works, etc. check out ethan zuckerman and andrew mclaughlin's [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldemocracy/internetarchitecture.html Introduction to Internet Architecture and Institutions]

Some fred turner resources: [http://blip.tv/file/125930 video presentation], [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/12/01/from-counterculture-to-cyberculture-the-rise-of-digital-utopianism/ audio presentation], and [http://www.stanford.edu/group/fredturner/cgi-bin/drupal/ homepage]

[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium Citizendium]

Jason Scott on [http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/808 The Great Failure of Wikipedia] (2004)

[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/012611-internet-providers-are-the-new.html Internet providers are the new secret police, says report]

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List]

[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/open-source-fail Open Source #FAIL]

"For all its allure, the Internet can be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets." - US Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the U.S. Homeland Security Committee [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352375/Plan-Obama-kill-switch-powers-cut-internet-access-event-national-cyber-crisis.html Call to give Obama 'kill switch' powers to cut internet access in the event of national cyber crisis] 1 Feb 2011

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html Spotlight Again Falls on Web Tools and Change - article on how repressive regimes can use the internet and new media to their advantage]

== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:RebekahHeacock|RebekahHeacock]] 14:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)'''</div>

I agree that the Cluetrain manifesto did predicate the shift in new media communication models from a ‘one to many’ model (where an organisation communicates a standard message to a large non-responsive audience) to a ‘one on one’ mode of communication (where companies aim to have a conversation with individuals). I would argue, however that the early developments in the adoption of social media adoption relied on self-empowered individuals who were communicating their views as most employees are not motivated to communicate in the way that the manifesto suggests. [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Quill80 rasies a great point for the internet to truly be equalizer we need to provide access to the most marginalize. One great recent example has been Egypt. Turning off the voice of the people by eliminating their ability to express them selves via the web. In my mind it would have been so much more productive if they would have engaged in dialogue. [[User:Buie|Buie]] 22:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading the Cluetrain Manifesto, I could not help but to remember what Henry Ford said, “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.” Clearly, this kind of top-down approach no longer has its place in the modern world. The fact that the Internet has changed the way companies interact with their customers is as widespread as undeniable. However, I want to remark that the lack of universal access to technology has actually marginalized those consumers without the means or skills of getting themselves heard through the cyberspace more ever than before. Businesses are adapting quickly to the new changes in the market. However, I want to question, how well are we, as a society, sharing the benefits of technology to those who do not have access? [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Cluetrain Manifesto blurs the lines between who is considered the market, employee, corporation and the communication between the three. A key point in my mind is that each one has a human voice despite it's position, so many theses are fundamentally flawed. Trust builds loyalty in markets, online markets are not immune to advertisements. Online advertising is changing in dramatic, more personal ways as uses of the Internet evolve.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

While reading this Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace i can not shake a thought of Technological Singularity which is supposed to come by the earliest estimates around the year 2020... Science fiction or a true possibility? --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia offers knowledge on extensive topics, holding the better model, is there not a huge concern that there is no longer postings of validated facts versus mere opinion?

Here is a link to the BBC World Service documentary Wikipedia at 10 - a 22.5 minute retrospective on the occasion of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary. It covers a number of topics, some of which may be relevant to the upcoming Wikipedia editing assignment. ''(Reposted from the January 25th discussion page, as it seems more appropriate here. - BrandonAndrzej)''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2011/01/110111_wikipedia_at_10.shtml

The rhetorical use of the euphemism of the monolithic corporation in the [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto] undermines the effectiveness its message. Thesis number two states, “Markets consist of human beings...” Last time I looked, so do corporations.

In fact corporations are highly organized social creatures with diverse internal cultures, rules, mores and recognized standards of behavior. They respond to a broad spectrum of internal and external influence. If only solving today’s problems were so easy as to point our finger and say “off with their heads.” The real challenge, however, is much more complicated and a matter of personal responsibility.

Corporations come in all flavors. Some are highly democratic. As requirements of participating in the public capital markets all have democratic institutions: a constitution (articles of incorporation), boards of directors, shareholders, external advocates and most importantly customers. The Manifesto takes the all too easy out of blaming the generic “them.” The truth is that the reason corporations are as they are today is because the majority of corporate stakeholders abdicate their responsibility to guide the direction of the organization through exercise of their enfranchisement as shareholders and customers.

The behavior of corporations is a function of ''our'' collective actions and inactions. We have cheap goods made by slave labor because in the exercise of our conspicuous consumption we don’t want to - or without sacrificing our consumption volume can’t afford to - pay the price of having the same goods manufactured by the un-oppressed. The result is that we send our dollars to evil places rather than fund the social infrastructure that improves the standard of living of more humane societies.

Further we have out-of-control executive salaries, unrestrained executive actions, boards of directors driven by motivations other than the interests of the shareholders and other unsavory corporate behaviors because we fail to fulfill our responsibilities. Too few read the prospectus, attend shareholder meetings, or even vote shares beyond granting proxy to the someone else. I am guilty as charged when like so many, I seek to maximize my ability to profit by pooling my finances in investment cartels while leaving decision making to fund managers, investment advisors and other members of the vested interest.

Many say we need more regulations. I say we have the regulations that we desire. This is true because through our collective actions we drive corporate investment decisions. If we did not want corporations to spend scarce investment dollars to employ the more than 45,000 lobbyists in Washington who water down and fight against regulation, the corporations would find other places to invest. If instead we used our purchasing power and shareholder votes to direct investment elsewhere, there it would flow.

The Icelandic version of Microsoft Windows mentioned in [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] proves the point. On the other hand our abdication of this power as Digital Borders expresses results in the fact that the, “[http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 technologies of control in China are essentially the same technologies designed to satisfy consumer demand for geographically tailored Internet products.]” Due in part to our marketplace behaviors, oppressors are given the tools they so effectively use as an unintended consequence of our desire for applications to tell us how many of our friends are in close proximity who might be interested in a game of beer pong.

Chasing our dollars and with our benign assent, corporations have followed the instruction we have given them. Let’s stop blaming “them;” for we are them and start taking responsibility for the results of our actions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 00:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed watching the BBC anniversay documentary on Wikipedia. As businesses start to utilize this media, I wonder how the controls put in place by Wikipedia for neutral content can possibly be effective. I compared an entry for the holding company for which the company where I am employed is a subsidiary and compared it to one of our competitors. The difference was substantial. The competitor's had a distinct advertising (promotion) flavor along with company's graphics on the right hand border of the page. My company's was a four sentence historical overview providing little relevant information to any potential customer or employee. After checking with our PR Department, I was told no one in the company had written the posting. They assume it was done by a third party contributor. Just by comparing these two companies, the lack of uniformity is readily apparent.--[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC) sjennings

Hello. First remark is concerning [http://www.cluetrain.com/ Cluetrain Manifesto]. These 3 'Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.' I think that big part of our current comminucation has a sound of 'message' or 'MS Outlook Email Sound' if you know what I mean. Sad, but true.

Another remark is about [http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace].'You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve.[...]...governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.' I think this is very good statement for discussion. I am not sure to what extend Internet shoudl be independent from real world. Should not be there governing rules? Should it be for intance ISP who decides what they do with my personal data, or information about what kind of webpages I visit, or even where am I located?We do not need any law for that?
We do not need Ecommerce directive or DMCA in US? I am not sure whether I get it right but to me it looks like declaration wanted to say somethink like we do not need them (nbot particular those ones but in general). Any suggestions?
--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir, I think reading Yu Ri's posted articles at the bottom of the page--particularly, "The Internet's new borders"--will help answer your questions. This article says that while the internet is a "...placeless datasphere, [it's] part of our real world. Like all frontiers, it was wild for a while, but policemen always show up eventually." Hence, the "Declaration" was written as a good-humored stunt, trying to capture the excitement about this new frontier. Inevitably, frontiers are conquered and governed by local and national filtering--and even if frontiers are not fully conquered, like actual outer space, nations try to one up each other to stake their claim of territories at least.[[User:Myra|Myra]] 13:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I also inferred the lack of need for DMCA, copyright and general intellectual property regulation. I think we still have a lot of work to do in how the laws are applied, increased improvements in open source and open standards to help users. A system where the creative work itself is protected more so than the medium in which it is used.--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 20:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Principal ideas expressed “The Cluetrain Manifesto“ and „The Great Failure of Wikipedia” I have found in sharp contradiction. The “Cluetrainers” consider the conversation and trading of information and traverse of ideas over the Internet as the essence for present corporations, markets and cultures. On the other hand the author of “Great Failure of Wikipedia” considers gathering and structuring information through communication of masses over the Internet as a work of “wonks”, “twiddlers”, which amount to “ procedural whackjobs”.
The clash between these two ideological approaches to the essence of the Internet remind me challenges between the governance of majority expressed in democracy and democratic system and governance of elite represented by oligarchic system. These two philosophical, sociological and political approaches are well reasoned and analyzed in the work of Jose Ortega y Gasset “ The Revolt of the Masses” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Ortega_y_Gasset).
To make a short summary of this scholar ś ideas, only elite “content generators” formed by some “barriers of entry” could produces welfare “content” in all aspects of human society “the Internet”. I believe that this struggle would never have the winner. [[User:Zholakova|Zholakova]] 21:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the concept of a “borderless Internet,” the article [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders] claims it is reflective of both government and consumer pressure for an Internet that conforms to their individual preferences and laws. I would also argue that such filtered content delivery also arose out of huge corporate demand. Yahoo! has a wealth of user data (geographic, demographic, behavioral, etc) at its disposal, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium to be able to leverage that. So, while a formidable blow to Internet freedom, Mr. Yang and his company have ultimately benefited greatly from the byproduct of their legal defeat, which is a highly profitable business in localized content delivery.

This also raises the controversial topic of how relevant is ''too'' relevant. Internet consumers are keenly aware that their personal information is being collected and repurposed, but it does not seem the boundaries are permanently drawn yet. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just had some initial comments before we discuss further in class. Digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the cross-border communication and information sharing, and this has benefited everyone unimaginably. However, the Internet also has created many great issues and problems that are very serious and threatening (i.e. privacy issues, cyber-terrorism, support for terrorism and other criminal activities, etc.). In order to maximize/protect the benefits and minimize/eliminate damages caused by the Internet, I feel that law, regulation and censorship sometimes are necessary. Anarchy eventually leads to destruction, and I do not think the cyberspace is an exception. Thus, I was a bit uncomfortable with the ideas portrayed in either the [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] or the [http://www.cluetrain.com Cluetrain Manifesto]. Moreover, as discussed in the [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961 Digital Borders], there are vast differences in laws, regulations, cultures and traditions among countries around the world, and they must be respected in the cyberspace as they are aimed to be as such in the “real world.” Through this course, I hope I can gain more ideas about the extent to which the Internet should be regulated and controlled by governments.[[User:Edwardshinp|Edwardshinp]] 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a free, humanistic and borderless Internet expressed in the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace and Cluetrain Manifesto is simply romantic but naïve idealism. Certainly the Internet is a wonderfully powerful communication medium, but we must recognize that it stands upon the shoulders of television, radio and the various printed media. Egyptians are using twitter to challenge Hosni Mubarak’s authority in the same way Thomas Paine printed Common Sense to challenge the authority of King George III. But the Internet can just as easily be used as a tool of government to monitor and control its people. Benkler (The Wealth of Networks), Goldsmith and Wu (Digital Borders) understand the reality that government regulation of the Internet is a natural and inevitable process, and that it’s a messy business. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet means that it will be subject to both international and every sovereign state’s laws simultaneously. Of this there can be no doubt, as we have already seen Egypt’s “kill switch” in action. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris], You are right that there is a lot of “romantic but naïve idealism” expressed in many of the proclamations about what digital technologies mean to the world. Is it not true that most great movements have often had anthems with flowery rhetoric aimed at inspiring some who may not have acted to action? “[http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ We hold these truths to be self evident …,"] “[http://www.history.org/almanack/people/bios/biohen.cfm I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death …,"] and “[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY Ask not …"]?

Shouldn't we ask how we may learn from the evolution of “television, radio and the various printed media” and apply the lessons of those experiences in shaping the future? [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_11.pdf Benkler] pointed out how the early perception of, use and regulation of communications media still shape the way those technologies apply to the world today. In our discussions I hope we will leave ourselves open to the possibilities that the nature of digital technologies may make a difference. I hope we can free our thinking from preconceptions we may unknowingly hold as we ponder these questions and contribute to the frameworks for the future.

Take for example the idea of an Internet kill switch. Aside from arguing the merits of such an idea the question is: is it even a technical possibility? Paul Ford points out that, “[http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/what-could-possibly-go-wrong-internet-switch The last time someone could shut down the Internet was probably in 1969, when it consisted of two computers."] In fact within hours of the Egyptian government throwing the “kill switch,” in Cairo’s Tahir Square “[http://antonyloewenstein.com/2011/01/29/what-egyptian-uprising-says-about-the-desperate-desire-for-freedom/ nearby residents reportedly opened their home Wi-Fi networks to allow protesters to get online”.] As well, “[http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20029927-245.html activists were faxing WikiLeaks cables into Egypt to bypass the Internet blockade,”] external players [http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/49101/google-and-twitter-tag-team-for-egypt/ Twitter and Google] were teaming up to provide an alternative and many other factors were at play to provide a workaround for the people of Egypt. Is it not possible that the nature of digital technologies may be a force to push the needle that gauges where we stand at any moment on the spectrum between liberty and oppression more toward liberty thus justifying optimisim? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Chris that there exists a lot of idealism in the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Can a civilization exist without laws? There would be an absence of civility itself. We can't lose sight of the fact that there are humans that make up and are the driving force behind Cyberspace. The social human condition would not allow for a world that lacks intellectual property rights in any form. I still believe we have a lot of work to do in regards to intellectual property laws and creating platforms that not only protect the rights of the creator, but respect the digital evolution. --[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts regarding Wikipedia: Wikipedia presents itself as a "democratic entity” - one which gathers its content from users around the globe and allows everyone to freely participate. However, many observers (such as in the BBC Worldservice documentary) have noted that the majority Wikipedia's content is derived from a relatively small number of regular users. The picture painted is one of an oligarchy where a limited number of "elite" users control the content of the encyclopedia via enforcement strict of policy rules, essentially erecting barriers to casual users. I am trying to reconcile this picture with that painted by Jason's Scott's "Great Failure of Wikipedia", in he describes a small number of "content generators" under siege from a great mass of "wonks, twiddlers, and procedural whackjobs" who are essentially negative contributors to the site. "Content generators" become "content defenders", with only those few contributors willing to put extensive effort into protecting their content actually seeing that content become (more or less) permanent additions to the encyclopedia. I am unsure of how accurate this depiction (or either depiction, for that matter) is... The central question here is whether the "elite" users generating the majority of the content are also the users most active in enforcing policy/policing entry barriers, or whether these roles are largely divided between separate user populations. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Some (pessimistic) links regarding social networking technologies and political change:
First, a blog post dismissive of the impact of the internet and social networks in the current crisis in Egypt:
"Tell Mubarak we don't need his damn internet" http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2011/blog1102c.htm
Second, a Slate Magazine book review looking at the way politically repressive regimes are using the internet and social networks to their advantage:
Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion http://www.slate.com/id/2281743/
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Without hesitation, I also strongly agree that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independence_of_Cyberspace A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]is a naive idealism of the cyber-Utopians including John Perry Barlow. As we can see from numerous recent incidents such as the ongoing revolution in Egypt and North Korea artillery attack to South Korea, the online society is, indeed, under the influence of national governments and their regulations. It is quite sad and disappointing to realize how the Internet can be so vulnerable to central regulations. Even apart from the these cases,[[A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace]] still lacks the practicality and is a mirage: to me, this document sounds like an attempt to define one's idea separated from one's physical body. Is that really possible? The Declaration says, "We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts." There is a famous quote of John F. Kennedy - 'A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on.' It seems that the Declaration made an exaggeration on the thrid part of the quote. However, what cyber-Uptopians remember is that Kennedy never regard thoughts as the active subjects of a society.
*Here are some articles that I would love to share with you!
1)["http://www.economist.com/node/16941635"]
2)["http://www.economist.com/node/730089?story_id=730089"]
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2013-01-17T21:58:38Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''March 1'''

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:IS2011-3.1.11-New_and_Old_Media.pdf Slides: New and Old Media, Participation, and Information]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==
* John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney, [http://www.thenation.com/article/death-and-life-great-american-newspapers The Life and Death of Great American Newspapers]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Media Re:public Overview] - Read at least the executive summary
* [https://secure.nmmstream.net/anon.newmediamill/aspen/kcfinalenglishbookweb.pdf Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy] - Read at least the executive summary, recommendations and conclusions
* Nieman Journalism Lab, [http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/06/four-crowdsourcing-lessons-from-the-guardians-spectacular-expenses-scandal-experiment/ Four crowdsourcing lessons from the Guardian’s (spectacular) expenses-scandal experiment]
* [http://sunlightfoundation.com/ Sunlight Foundation website] - just look around the site to see what they are up to
* Pennenberg, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803042.html WikiLeaks' Julian Assange: 'Anarchist,' 'agitator,' 'arrogant' and a journalist]

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf FTC Staff Discussion Draft, Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism] - just skim it
* Leonard Downie, Jr., and Michael Schudson, [http://www.cjr.org/reconstruction/the_reconstruction_of_american.php?page=all The Reconstruction of American Journalism]
* [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/index.csp We The Media, Dan Gillmor] (the [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/ch00.pdf Introduction] is a good start, so to speak)
* [http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html Jay Rosen, Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over]
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html Shirky on Social Media]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

Reading the Knight Commission Report, it is interesting to see how the objectives to achieve informed communities can be found more and more frequently on the new media. As Earboleda notes referring to the recent riots in the Arab world, it is worth to note the ability of individuals to engage with information, communicating what they see with the community. Egypt shut down Internet, beginning with Twitter and Facebook. Primarily as tools for organizing, but they also emerged as one of the most reliable sources of information (and sometimes the only one) from abroad. It was amazing to see how the technology community came to rescue: Google and Twitter joined forces to develop in a weekend a system to convert spoken tweets in text through a phone call (speak2tweet), no need for internet connection. The information society environment is changing, and not just at an individual user level. Given the news blackout, Al Jazeera chose to release its video contents licensed under Creative Commons, making available to any user relevant and credible information (implying creation, distribution and preservation, as the Knight Commission Report states). I guess the decline of journalism has been around for a while, although, as indicated Yu Ri, for most outsiders has gone unnoticed. The acquisition of The Huffington Post by AOL or other movements as the exit of The New York Times in the S&P 500 on Wall Street to make way for other companies such as Netflix... I guess they are signs of the end of an era. [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey all, I hope we don't mind but I re-organized the comments from this week's class so there was a clear distinction between "Discussion" and "Links." I think having two specific areas each for us to discuss and to share is important; that way we don't get distracted by links in the middle of a point someone is making, and the links themselves don't get buried under conversations. I hope you guys agree! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 17:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a few comments in response to the material covered in the last slides. It is no doubt that with changes in the function of the media, the society eventually will become reorganized as well. By increasing the amount of information sources, the flow of information through the internet will redistribute our society into variety of constituent groups. Each group will have its own gravitational force that will maintain loyalty of its members. Now, there are two major types of gravities that attract people: one, which involves no money, that is, members are acting based on the ideological cause only; second, in which money-making is the primary objective of the members. There could be a third type, in which members are attracted by both a moderate amount of money and by the good old cause. These segments of the society, may be not all, are going to correlate with each other to the certain degree while maintaining a relationship with the dominating in the nation ideology or perhaps policy such as Federal Law. Hence, the society will thereby become more integrated horizontally rather than vertically. The hierarchic structures will no longer have that monopolistic power as they do have it today. The society will be re-engineered and the shock will certainly take place as Klien describes in the book "The Shock Doctrine". There are certainly will be turbulences during the emergence of groups influenced by the different types of institutional ecology as Benkler asserts in his book "The Wealth of Networks". Thus, the utility of the larger group producing the news will suffer due to the process of disintegration, whereas the social benefit of the group receiving the news will rise due to variety of available sources. These are some anticipations that we can make now and prepare to adjust ourselves accordingly. I should have said all this in class, but I do not think that the institutional ecology would allow me. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers article made me ever more thankful for my International Herald Tribune (the international edition of the New York Times). Top reporting, top writing but at a top price (3 euros – approximately $4.00 cover price), it has become a luxury product targeted to a specific and affluent international readership. I was horrified when it started including advertisements on the front page, and worse, on the once sacred editorial page - then I understood why: survival.[[User:Mary Van Gils|Mary Van Gils]] 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we are going to talk about the old and new media, I thought that we should have an idea about the sequence of events that have much contributed to the technological development of the internet. By knowing the rate of improvement in hardware and infrastructure, we can hopefully realize an impact the internet has made on the legacy media and what role did the government play in the downfall of the American journalism. Internet Timeline: http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 18:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I can readily sympathize with this week’s selected authors. It is unquestionable that the state of journalism is declining, and it was declining long before the Internet was to available to blame. I had been involved in local politics from the mid 1980’s until a few years ago. At the start there were always 3 or 4 reporters attending the Selectmen’s and Finance board meetings, and 1 or 2 at every other board or commission meeting. By the time I “retired” from politics only one local paper remained. The sole reporter couldn’t (and still can’t) attend the meetings so he would call the local officials to ask what transpired, then write the report based on what he was told without any further fact checking. Often the newspaper reports are wildly inaccurate.
While the newspaper was the government watchdog of the past, today it is usually the lone gadfly who attends all the meetings, asks the tough questions, and does whatever he can to make his voice heard. The Internet is his most powerful amplifier. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 00:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that journalism was already declining long before the widespread of the Internet was novel to me. I assumed that emergence of citizen-led media is taking significant roles of reporting and distributing information away from the conventional media. Was it a lame excuse of the existing journal entities to explain their reduced power which is caused by factors other than the bloggers? --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 09:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that a proposed solution to the decline of American journalism, is to look at government subsidies. Would the fact that journalists are subsidized by the government in some fashion, make it a target for political and other influences? What would stop Congress or the President from cutting off subsidies, or having undue influence on an investigation by a reporter for an article they did not like? The reality is that the world is changing rapidly, and that includes the way we consume information. Social media is what helped fuel revolutions across Tunisia, and the Arab world. This was done by empowering the people with information; not through state subsidized news outlets... [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the frustrating elements of the discussion of the decline of journalism is that which focuses on global coverage; I am unconvinced that rhetoric regarding pre-Internet global coverage is anything more than nostalgia. Even the major bureaux often lacked (and still lack) the local knowledge required to cover a locale accurately. In that sense, I think it's important to note how social media, citizen journalism, hyperlocal journalism, and other forces have improved upon global coverage of news.

The Nation piece touches on this, certainly, but I don't think it digs deep enough into the issues surrounding international correspondents and fixers. [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

Slides for class: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:IS2011-3.1.11-New_and_Old_Media.pdf http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:IS2011-3.1.11-New_and_Old_Media.pdf]

* Reposting this because, after reading all the material for this week, I'm realizing that it's outrageously relevant. Watch it!:
** [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/online_news.html#abstract ONLINE NEWS: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber?] - ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting case on appeal in the Belgian courts regarding Yahoo’s aggregate news service that could have further European implications. A Belgian court ruled in 2007 that Google News’ publishing links breached Belgian copyright laws.
See http://www.bloomberg.com/news - search Google Belgium 2011-02-24 “Google Belgian Copyright Case Could Set Europe Policy”

In the United States the way one of the founding fathers envisioned free speech was that “the people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”'

While the premise of this argument exists in America today, I am unconvinced in the current culture that the majority of citizen “journalism” promotes and/or moves facts forward to actually enhance the greater good in many cases. We continue to see this during times of difficulty where inaccurate and misleading information is relayed through one source or another. I think the larger argument that needs to be made is that the separation between opinion and fact is almost virtually extinct in the media today. In the age of the five-second headline of hyperbole the “quick hit” is king over the investigated fact.

There are only a few large corporations that own the media outlets and they have control over the way news is relayed. These organizations often relay “news” into the public forum through the prism of political bias and financial expediency.
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

On September 22 2009, Clay Shirky spoke at the Shorenstein Center on accountability journalism. Shirky noted "we are headed into a long trough of decline in accountability journalism because the old models are breaking faster than the new models will be put in their place." He goes on to note that decisions about what news is being desired, “is now being made more by the consumer of the news than by the producer of the news.” In an effort to keep up with that constant appetite, media organizations have become sloppy in their reporting.
1. James Madison, House of Representatives, June 8 1789
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnW2Lv8aFGs
[[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How a Kansas City blogger made himself the go-to destination for KC info, both for citizens and local journalists. Where does he fit in the blogger vs. journalist debate?
[http://www.pitch.com/2011-03-03/news/tonys-kansas-city/ Welcome to Tony's Kansas City]
[[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This 'pitch' article is pretty interesting. It seems like he operates as a KC pundit: "The Botello of TKC hated Kansas City, for one. He referred to it as "cowtown" and trashed its every institution, from the Chiefs to the art scene to the restaurants. Men were "douchebags," women "skanks" and "tramps."" I don't know if I would call him a journalist in the traditional "being objective" sense especially after reading some of his articles (although some of his articles seem to be very objective), but I would definitely consider his work to be valuable. His spin can easily be dissected and the facts can be reevaluated. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 19:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who is curious (I know I was!), here are a couple articles detailing the French court's decision in the Joseph Weiler/Karin Colvo-Goller libel case. The case was dismissed, as the court ruled that the review in question did not go beyond the bounds of any normal review, and that Ms. Colvo-Goller did not bring the suit in good faith (meaning that she forum-shopped).<br>
[http://chronicle.com/article/French-Court-Finds-in-Favor-of/126599/ "French Court Finds in Favor of Journal Editor Sued for Libel Over Book Review" - ''The Chronicle of Higher Education'']<br>
[http://www.ejiltalk.org/in-the-dock-in-paris-%E2%80%93-the-judgment-by-joseph-weiler-2/ Prof. Weiler's blog post about the ruling]<br>
[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 19:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Another great article on this topic of old vs new media. Apparently this is a particularly hot button issue right now. Jay Rosen, from NYU's J-school, is presenting at SXSW on this topic, and has written an article as a means of soliciting reader's input on this upcoming presentation. Today he responded to some reader responses. The whole thing, including the conversations in the comments section, is worth a read:<br>
[http://pressthink.org/2011/03/monsters-of-the-newsroom-id-why-bloggers-vs-journalists-is-still-with-us/ Why "Bloggers vs. Journalists" is Still With Us] [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

New Economic Models

2013-01-17T21:58:37Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 8'''
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Note: To make up for the snow day on February 1, tonight's class will run an extra hour, until 8:30pm.'''</div>

The rise of the networked economy is changing economic possibilities around the world. From the call centers in India to eBay and the new Internet entrepreneurs, there are many signs that suggest a flatter world fueled by innovative production and marketing strategies. In this session, we will explore the promise and reality of the changing economic tides associated with rising Internet use including those marketing to the long tail and the new oligopolists.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSociety_Feb8_part_I.pdf Slides: Paradigms for Studying the Internet]

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_1:_Wikipedia|Assignment 1]] due

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot-com Bubble]
* Chris Anderson, [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html The Long Tail]
* Kevin Kelly, [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php Better than Free]
* Eric von Hippel:
** The Economics of Open Content Symposium: New Models of Creative Production in the Digital Age Collaboration and the Marketplace - '''Video stream of the 30-minute presentation: [http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel new improved link!]''' (requires [http://real.com/ RealPlayer]). See below for alternate links to the presentation in video and audio format.
** [http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books/DI/Chapter8.pdf Democratizing Innovation, Chapter 8: Adapting Policy to User Innovation]

== Additional Resources==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail "Wikipedia Long Tail"]
* Free by Chris Anderson[http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?]
</onlyinclude>
* Larry Lessig's [http://codev2.cc/ Code 2.0]

== Class Discussion ==
All three articles carry a common theme: there's a finite number of dollars in the consumer's pocket and old school marketing demographics are not sufficient. Instead, the key differentiator for success is personalized marketing. Rather than broadcasting advertisements to the general population, each Internet user can be presented with a personalized market basket tailored to his or her precise wants and needs. On one hand, this individualized service can be quite useful and convenient -- like having your own digital gentlemen's gentlemen. On the other hand, personalized service can only be delivered when they possess intimate knowledge of your behavior and desires. It can become quite uncomfortable to consider how much personal information is available on the Internet, and how uncontrolled the sharing of that information has become. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 02:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I really like this TED video of Larry Lessig. Not only is the content applicable to the class, but the presentation is extraordinary.
[[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html Larry Lessig on the laws that choke creativity]]--[[User:SCL|SCL]] 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Kelly's [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php# Better Than Free] was particularly interesting to me. He said, "Nor are legal skills surrounding Intellectual Property and Copyright very useful anymore." As a student who wishes to be an IP lawyer, I consider it quite important to examine his assertion and the future of IP Law field as well. In his writing, he insisted that super-distribution system of the Internet is leading to excessive abundance of information and thus creating limitless free copies floating around the digital world. I wonder whether he assumed that legal knowledge is also one of the things that can be easily duplicated, used, and applied without any academic devotion to the subject. Was he implying that the prevalence of wrongdoing - distributing creative works without due process or permission - can justify such act and nullifies existence of legal principles? Classmates, I would love to hear your opinions. Thanks! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 12:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the podcasts I listened to today was Chris Anderson's speech on "The Long Tail" for Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. His presentation mainly talks about how our economy has changed from the 'blockbuster-hit culture' to the diverse long tail model. While following his explanation, I realized that I also accepted the so-called bestsellers as the comprehensive reflection of society's demand - without any doubt. But looking back from now, I ask, was it the actual compendium of people's taste? According to the logic behind [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem Brithday Problem], it is no exaggeration to say that reaching an agreement among millions of people is literally impossible. Considering such fact, the margin of error in a bestseller chart must be enormously large. Borrowing from Yonchai Benkler's terms, "Long Tail" can be defined as the phenomenon of what was "once on periphery of economy moving to the core of economic life." Today is truly the era in which diversity is supported and even emphasized for economic profits, the circumstance quite different from Industrial Era when mass production was the sole God. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 12:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed the Lessig video Chris posted above as well as the von Hippel video. Lessig labeling "amateur" (not amateurish) and "remix" as our modern-day culture is particularly interesting in that we have the opportunity to promote and innovate not only the "hits" but also the "misses"--as Anderson mentions in the "The Long Tail." The remixing then seems limitless, and while this is a world of abundance in technology and communication, with that, there will always be the issue of prohibition and control. RE Von Hippel's video, when he first cautioned that we need to shift business to the user (as opposed to the manufacturer) layer, I thought he was going to delve into future business practices; but then he referred to past innovations that began with the users who developed their own products for their own funtionality. By the time those got to the manufacturer and had been tweaked, the innovative products were presentable and tailored to groups (the masses)--then branded and sold. It is interesting how the initial innovator (the user) seems to lose out on the credit in the end, even though synergy can be possible for both the company and their consumers. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 17:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==

* Center for Internet and Society Podcast By Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
[http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/center-for-internet-society/id131237275]

Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech

2013-01-17T21:58:30Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''March 8'''

What is law's role in regulating online conduct and speech? At this point in the course you should be ready to tackle this question from a number of different perspectives. In this class we will begin to explore what role law is ''capable'' of playing as well as what role it ''should'' play. Remember John Perry Barlow's [http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace] which you read earlier in the course? Has his view of law's limited role been borne out? The sources of law impacting online conduct and speech are many, from intellectual property to tort to the First Amendment. Throughout today's class, we’ll tie the legal doctrines together with three themes:

* How regulation changes when it’s carried out by computers, rather than by people.
* Whether going online increases or decreases government control.
* The new kinds of power possessed by online intermediaries.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011slides_2011-03-08.pdf Slides: Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech]

<onlyinclude>

== Readings ==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/JohnsonPost.pdf David Johnson & David Post, Law and Borders] (excerpts)

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kerr.pdf Orin Kerr, The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law] (excerpts)

* [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/haven_pr.html Simson Garfinkel, Welcome to Sealand, Now Bugger Off, Wired (July 2000)]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yahoo.pdf Yahoo! Inc v. La Ligue Contra Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006)]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://www.ejiltalk.org/in-the-dock-in-paris/ Prof. Joseph Weiler: In the Dock, in Paris]
* [http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/03/the_net_s_soft_underbelly/index.html Salon: Online, the censors are scoring big wins]
* [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong EFF: Amazon and WikiLeaks - Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary]
* David Ardia, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689865 Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting the Social Foundations of Defamation Law] (Part IV)
* James Grimmelmann, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1760151 Sealand, HavenCo, and the Rule of Law]
</onlyinclude>

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

I have received another derogatory grade for my second assignment and need a feedback of my classmates on that. For those who read my prospectus, what grade do you think it deserves? For those who did not read it, I encourage you to take a look at my prospectus and make your comment below on this page or e-mail it me privately to ''vladimirkruglyak@mail.ru'' stating whether the project of this magnitude worth 3, 4, or 5 points on the 5 points scale (note that the prospectus is submitted on time). If your grade is below 5, please explain in what instances other projects supersede mine. When you read "sources sharing common domains" do you raise any questions, what are they? To be objective, consider the motive behind the grade of (3) for this type of prospectus submitted at this type of the course. Note that I do realize that this project, in order to be completed, requires a series of surveys that must be funded. Without surveys I have to rely on someone else's data or on "pickpocketing" which is unethical and therefore is not my goal. Nevertheless, I believe that the project could have produced several revealing results without significant changes. I think, along with dozens of my colleagues who are majoring in various disciplines, that if the prospectus such as I did deserves the grade of 3, no other project should gain more than that because there is no alternative prospectus has been submitted in this course or replicated based on my prospectus. Do you agree, disagree, and why? Thank you everyone for the survey!!

As per today's lecture, I found many aspects such as long-arm statute, interstate commerce law, interpol networking, and stock trading/investing accounts outsourcing that could have illustrated the problem with jurisdiction over the electronic source. I am not sure if it has been said, but the principle of cloud computing is also important for many amateurs who wish to hide the hosts of their web pages. I am also encouraging you to read the J.Gilies and R. Cailliau's book called "How the web was born" so that you can understand better the notion of the internet policy that has originally been imposed in various countries. The authors have a diverse perspective on ideological and legal concepts related to the internet. I have much deeper concepts in mind which I do not mind to share with people who signed up for this course but to share them on the web page of the course in which my work is unfairly graded is senseless. For intellectually curious people and those who in general finds my comments on this site and in the prospectus as interesting, I am offering to join my facebook group where we can create a more profound discussion by exchanging superior educational materials and debating about the issues discussed in this course. The page which soon is going to become autonomous web page of a non-profit organization is located at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7314616938 --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

**VladimirK, stop flaming and calm down. This type of hostility will not reward you. If you are concerned about your grade perhaps you should speak with the professors and teaching fellows as to how to improve your project. I believe that I have tried to help you by leaving comments both on the assignment page, and on your personal page in more detail. I am glad that you have considered the ethical implications of your research and have come to the conclusion that you did. Now all you really need to do is update your sources to the 21st century. Also, remember, this is just one grade out of several, and just the beginning of your project. Have fun with your topic, enjoy the work, and you will do fine. good luck ======:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 09:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

**Hi Margaret, I did not notice that you also commented on my personal page. Thank you. I am absolutely calm and rather curious to see how administrators will review the second assignment because my prospectus apparently exceeds in many regards the posted expectations. Yes, I agree that I have to define some technical frameworks, so as everyone's prospectuses that are in fact half shorter than mine, but it is not what constitutes my grade. The oxymoron consists in the fact that the grading mechanism is acting against its own description of the grading criteria, even more funny, the grader does not know what the line between the good and perfect assignment is. In terms of pickpocketing, the common code of ethics suggests that it is unethical to jeopardize someone else's privacy, unless there is a serious exception such as duty. This code is broken in so many ways by both government and private entities that it makes no sense to bring the notion of ethics. It is rather about cryptography, super computers, and who can do more of techno-art without getting prosecuted. Take a look for example at the scandal with Russian spies versus the conflict in Libya. In both cases a sabotage is carefully organized in order to defame the adversary. It just does not square out how the twin towers could have been attacked with such a powerful networks that detected so many spies. In Libiya, the internal political climate just does not have enough reasons to create a protest of this magnitude. The notion of reciprocity persists regardless of geographic situation, and the internet is the perfect way to support all ethical and unethical causes of action. It just a matter of power, as we heard in class, to stop the perpetrators at the foreign territory. As of today, there is enough evidences in theory and perhaps on the internet to execute G.W. Bush and dozens of his allies for crimes against humanity, but which court would do that? It is similar to the grading issue in this class: I have a proof posted on the page that I have been degraded for other than academic reasons, but there is no authority in this school who can intervene to establish the status quo. The more prospectuses I see with the grade of five, the more reasons I have to submit this project at another school. So, with all this being said, I guess I will work on my outline and talk with people you are suggesting along with other professionals and journalists to develop further my project. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 02:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing some of the complex nuances of the arguments, but to me the resolution seems straightforward. Laws exist to govern people not machines. The legal entities are citizens, companies and governments, not routers and servers. Every Internet web service is a transaction between two legal entities at each endpoint with subcontractors facilitating the transport. The Internet or, more precisely, the collection of independent service providers that comprise the Internet, should be regulated in the same manner that all domestic and foreign commerce is managed today. Germany, for example, requires every German web site to include an "impressum" page listing the legal owner of the site and contact information. Just as it is more complex to import and export goods across national boundaries, we should expect similar complexities with transnational web services. Whether or not we agree with the laws of a particular sovereign nation, it seems prudent that international law should preside in cyberspace as surely as anywhere else on the planet. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to encourage anyone who hasn't yet read the optional reading by Grimmelmann on the fate of HavenCo to do so; it's a terrific read. I find the central irony of the piece - essentially that HavenCo, ostensibly an organization devoted avoidance of the law, was actually heavily dependent on the rule of law to operate, and that lack of law, not the opposite, is what ultimately destroyed HavenCo - to be fascinating. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Like any good reader of mystery novels who once hooked into the plot flips to the back of the book to discover the ending, my curiosity forced me to google what happened to HavenCo and Sealand. Found http://www.theconstitutional.org/2011/02/15/sealand-and-havenco-part-ii-the-rise-and-fall-of-havenco/. Will take Brandon's suggestion and read the optional reading on the subject, but for the quick answer here it is. [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 14:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)]]

I was truly inspired by Orin Kerr's The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law. Someone who is deeply curious about Internet Law has to read this review! The basic legal principle of application of law based on fact raises a fundamental question within Internet Law. The most critical issue of current digital law is not how to list all the newly created technologies but on which perspective we are going to observe the case and apply laws. The view points of users and outsiders can be very tricky but need to be clarified for more accurate legal judgment. I would love to read the rest of this review and other related topics so that I develop better insights in analyzing Internet controversies. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 15:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brandon and Sjennings for the tips - I was also curious about the fate of HavenCo, and found it particularly interesting to learn that they were originally founded and registered in the UK. So yes, much more dependent on law than they led the public to believe. It also seems shortsighted that, in an effort to stretch the boundaries of the Internet, they saw the creation of a new physical space with its own set of lax regulations as the ultimate design. Other rebellious projects (i.e., torrent services, wikileaks, etc) were able to accomplish as much by operating entirely within the virtual space and defying territorial boundaries. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In reading “The Problem of Perspective in Internet Law” it brought up some interesting thoughts about the blurring between the “physical” and “virtual” worlds. How will law govern these types of scenarios in the future? In November, there was a sale of virtual property for $335K in the Virtual Entropia Universe. This was the largest virtual real estate deal to date and creates a whole new set of challenges with Internet law. What laws do you apply/enforce to a property that technically does not exist in the true sense of the physical definition? [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/geohot-site-unmasking/ Judge Lets Sony Unmask Visitors to PS3-Jailbreak Site] desscribes an interesting jurisdictional question to a copyright infringement case. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2013-01-17T21:58:25Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 26'''

A decade ago, the Internet was widely seen as a means to diminish the power of countries to regulate the flow of ideas and information. However, we have witnessed the resurgence of national sovereignty in cyberspace, with many countries now resorting to a combination of technology, law and intimidation to reign in the spread of free speech via the Net. Often aided by the technological support of the private sector in the United States, for this class, we will debate the ethics, practicality and implications of Internet censorship.
<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==

* Read John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain: [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/Deibert_06_Ch05_103-122.pdf Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet]
* Take a look at the [http://opennet.net/blog ONI blog]
* And the [http://opennet.net/map ONI global filtering map]
* Explore the Global Network Initiative website [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/ GNI], with particular attention to the [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php Principles], [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php Implementation Guidelines], and [http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/governanceframework/index.php Governance Framework]

== Additional Resources ==

</onlyinclude>
== Class Discussion ==

== Links ==

Here is a link to the link to the extensive Freedom House "Freedom on the Net 2011" report. (Honestly, at 410 pages I haven't really had time to read and evaulate this, but I thought I would throw it up on the wiki for those who might be interested.)
http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FotN/FOTN2011.pdf
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On the Today show this morning, one of the lead headlines was about your location can be followed thru your IPhone and IPad which is something we have been chatting about for the last two classes in the chat room. Also, there was an interesting article for corporate counsel on law.com regarding the idea that the government is watching corporations on the internet:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202484184534
[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)}}

Internet and Democracy

2013-01-17T21:58:25Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 19'''

Digital tools are seen as playing a major part in political activities and revolutions around the world from the Green Revolution in Iran to the recent events in the Middle East and North Africa. In this class, we'll explore the role of the Internet in political organizing, social movements and popular protests, and the potential impact of digital tools on governance.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyApril19.pdf Slides: Internet and Democracy]

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?_r=2&hp A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History]

* [http://ejournalism.co.uk/?p=739 Clay Shirky on social media in the Middle East and North Africa]

* [http://nms.sagepub.com/content/12/8/1225.full.pdf Etling, Kelly, Faris and Palfrey, Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture and Dissent]
**Problems with the Etling, Kelly, Faris and Palfrey PDF? If you're off campus and presented with a website saying you need to sign up to access this article . . . you do not. Sign into Harvard's VPN solution and you'll then have access or access it while on the Harvard network (on campus). Or ask nicely and I'm sure it can be emailed to you. :-) --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 01:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
** Updated link to the Etling, et al. piece: [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Mapping_Irans_Online_Public Bruce Etling and John Kelly, Mapping Iran's Online Public]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Public_Discourse_Russian_Blogosphere Etling, Alexanyan, Kelly, Faris, Palfrey, and Gasser, Public Discourse in the Russian Blogosphere: Mapping RuNet Politics and Mobilization]

* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2008/Digitally_Networked_Technology_Kenyas_Post-Election_Crisis Josh Goldstein and Juliana Rotich, Digitally Networked Technology in Kenya's 2007-2008 Post-Election Crisis].

* [http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/32-2pdfs/Faris-Etling_32-2.pdf Faris, Etling, Madison and the Smart Mob: The Promise and Limitations of the Internet for Democracy]

</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

I'm inclined to be skeptical of the idea that the internet and social media are making interpersonal connections "shallower", whether we are talking about "Facebook friends" or social and political activism. Setting aside the question of whether online relationships count as "real" relationships (that is, are qualitatively inferior to real-life relationships), in order for this theory to be correct, online relationships would have to be replacing real-life relationships. While I don't have any hard data to back this up, I simply don't see this happening in most cases. The imagined concept is one of young people avoiding traditional social contact in favor of hours spent online. However, I would postulate that the people most inclined to shut themselves off from the "real world" in favor of computers are the same people who would have shut themselves off in favor of books or various solo hobbies in previous decades. Under this model, the quantity and quality of social interaction for persons thus inclined is ''increasing'', rather than decreasing. What we are talking about is both an increase in reach and a lowering of thresholds. For the average user, social media, first and foremost, provides a vehicle for interaction with people they ''already know'' in real life (friends from school, family, etc... so your kid spending time on the computer rather than playing with friends outside is likely to be interacting with those same friends electronically) and then adds to this a new layer of online friendships and acquaintances which arise as social media provides previously unavailable opportunities to build relationships over distance. (There is, as well, traffic between these two layers, as real-life friends separated by distance use social media to keep in touch, and friends - and potential romantic partners - met online arrange to meet in person). Similarly, when it comes to activism, the increasing availability of "intermediate" levels of support (such as donation or petition signing – hardly new developments) is not likely, to my mind, to decrease the number of active real-world advocates. Verily, the opposite: those inclined to get off the couch and "make a difference" are still likely (or even more likely) to do so, only now with the support of countless others who would not have been reached by the activist's message otherwise.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth raising the point that there have been a lot of serious questions raised as to the accuracy of the NYTimes piece read in class this week; for example, Global Voices shows Egyptian Twitterers mocking the idea that they needed Western help (http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/15/egypt-gene-sharp-taught-us-how-to-revolt/). I think that, ultimately, this controversy is more important than the content of the article itself, in that it illustrates how social media can be vital to media accuracy--you have numerous direct accounts from known activists contradicting the commentary in the NYTimes, while the NYTimes meanwhile often has difficulty getting good sources in the Arab world because of its somewhat negative reputation (two words: Thomas Friedman). Another issue in the piece is the emphasis on a very tiny collaborative movement aided by the US, while numerous genuine, grassroots movements exist and have been ignored by media (case in point: The Arab Bloggers workshops and Arab Techies group).

In terms of the broader picture, one aspect of all of this that has been desperately overlooked is the use and importance of backchannels like private groups, IRC, and email. While social media is certainly important, the organizing that happens in private online spaces (as well as via SMS) is undoubtedly even more vital. [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another argument in favor of the role social media is playing in providing accurate information for journalists about things that are happening elsewhere: if you have Twitter, check out the work that @andycarvin has beeen doing. He's NPR's senior product manager for online communities, and has been connecting with people on the ground in countries like Egypt and Libya for a while, using them and their networks to verify or challenge information that the mainstream media has been getting. It's been neat stuff. [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 01:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of accuracy in the NY Times article, I don't think the internet is necessarily the mean of online hate speech and irrational behavior. Many of the least developed and heavily indebted poor countries are grossly corrupt, which lack adequate financial means or political and economic conditions to cultivate human rights. In addition, poor countries are also notoriously more vulnerable to economic volatility, conflict and humanitarian crisis; good governance matters to development and how citizens behave online.[[User:Alexsolomon|Alexsolomon]]

I find Mr. Shirky's interview to be especially important today. He highlights the use of social media, SMS, mobile email, and internet-based freedom of speech (i.e. blogs) to organize people in the absence of other more traditional, government controlled, methods (i.e. print media). I believe it is obvious that the governments are aware of the people's ability to organize over this uncontrolled medium which is why many governments are trying to stop further penetration of technologies such as email encryption and blogging/tweeting (e.g. India, Saudi Arabia, China). If they can control, stop, or accurately monitor these communication mediums they can further disrupt grassroots uprisings. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental notion of democracy is the active participation of the governed in the government, either directly or through representatives. This week’s readings take aim at an outer fringe of that notion: the active participation of the governed in the overthrow of government. There can be no doubt that the Internet provides the world’s best electronic soapbox. It is a better mouthpiece, a better broadcast medium, a better tool. Etling et al. wisely note that “[t]he Internet lays a good foundation for a battle of ideas, but does not necessarily favor a winner” while Shirky states more bluntly that the Internet is “a better way to take down autocracies but not a better way to replace them.” We can marvel at the effectiveness of social media in toppling the Egyptian government, but it could not have happened without a military that was sympathetic to the public. Libya and Iran demonstrate the counterpoint.
While the Internet has shown great promise facilitating political freedom, I fear those days are numbered. Last week’s readings exposed the blatant large scale surveillance which the Internet also facilitates. The video from the cell phone uploaded to youtube probably contains the serial number of the phone traceable to the owner via his GPS coordinates. This is not just a problem with the Internet – it is prevalent in all technology. You can no longer print an “anonymous” political flyer when it contains the serial number of the color printer that rendered it. Technology is a powerful tool that can do wonderful and terrible things. It needs thoughtful regulation.
[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The simple quote by Wael Ghonim really brings home the message of how government should be looked at. “This is your country; a government official is your employee who gets his salary from your tax money, and you have your rights.” The simple message was able to be communicated through Technology and Social Media. Both have naturally played a crucial role in the changes occurring in the Arab world. Discussing technology, Clay Shirkey states “The technology is that big of difference if it is a big difference.” He goes on to explain that the newness of the technology creates a unique opportunity for impact, as users are unsure how to react to it. Unfortunately, this same technology can also be used against the protestors (as was used by Iran to track down protestors). Given that this is happening in some Arab countries, is there a reason why this has not created a lot of traction in countries like Syria? Is it because this same technology is being used against the protestors? [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
[http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/04/12/state-of-texas-leaks-data-on-3-5-million-people/ State of Texas exposes data of 3.5 million people] I mentioned this story in the chat room during last class, seemed to be a good point considered the private vs state accumulation of personal info discussion that we were having. It's a quick read, and it'll make you squirm. [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 18:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Fareed Zakaria's 1997 "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" essay, referenced in the Faris/Etling article, which contrasts "Democracy" with "Constitiutional Liberalism".
http://www.fringer.org/wp-content/writings/fareed.pdf
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 23:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're looking to Tunisia and Egypt, I really think we ought to be looking at Tunisian and Egyptian sources, particularly in light of the fact that we're reading what is largely considered an inaccurate portrayal by the NYTimes. Here are two great pieces from an Egyptian blogger (they're not necessarily representative, but they're the best English sources I've found so far): http://www.hanimorsi.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/02/22/from-clicktivism-to-activism/; http://www.hanimorsi.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/02/17/the-virtualization-of-dissent-social-media-as-a-catalyst-for-social-change-part-two/. I also think that these two 2008 pieces from Egyptian journalist Hossam El-Hamalawy are vital reading, incredibly prescient: http://www.arabawy.org/2008/05/08/the-revolution-will-be-flickrized/; http://www.arabawy.org/2008/02/26/a-call-to-blogo-arms/. [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My Assignment 4 paper was loosely based on this. I wonder people see the far reaching grasp of the Internet. Social media keeps growing and affecting our lives. With such devices as Facebook and Wikileaks, it wont be long before the masses control the countrys' direction. Joshua Surillo

This article too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/02/egypt-revolution-mubarak-wall-of-fear [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Question: [http://www.govtech.com/e-government/Government-Twitter-Tsar.html Do Government Agencies Need a Twitter Tsar?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a great little video that considers some of the negative impact that the internet can have on democracy. [http://wimp.com/internetinhibit/ RSAnimate: Does the Internet actually inhibit, not encourage democracy?] [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2013-01-17T21:58:25Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''March 29'''

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the year-old US National Broadband Plan and the Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyMarch29.pdf Slides: Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

* Net Neutrality 101 [http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CKbclcK65KcCFULf4AodaxmJCg]

* More Confusion about Internet Freedom [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/]

* Hands Off the Internet [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlhSbJYxOnc]

== Optional Readings==

* [http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]
* [http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]
* [http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]
* [http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]
* [http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]
* [http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]
* [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]
* [http://www.isp-planet.com/cplanet/tech/2004/prime_letter_040301_powell.html Powell's Four Freedoms]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
A number of things came to mind during the readings. The one that I'd like to discuss here is what the economic impact on startup and small businesses and the potential negative effects pipeline tiering might have on the US economy. Pipeline tiering could and most likely would have a negative effect on the US economy if small and startup businesses seek creating revenue in other countries due to class A and class B access by US ISP's. This said, it could mean many companies opting not to setup shop in the US. This in turn means less innovation within our own borders. In the end the ISP's lose out on a source of revenue and the US loses it's position as world class innovator.

Further, if another country dictates that all content is free to anyone, how can it be enforced if our own ISP's charge a tier pricing to access such sites, data and content? It would also be a requirement for protection of such sources to be made law or included in the requirement to pay for access. But how do you collect against a foreign country where the services are housed? Are this ISP's really thinking this through? Are they prepared to lose a large amount of business to foreign providers? To the majority of us we would not notice if we are going to say the UK for content.

If Sealand were still in existence would it help protect against the possibility of tiered charges?
--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading all this week's assignment readings, I started to dig websites to see what is going on in my country, which is South Korea, regarding the "Net Neutrality" issue. It was quite a surprise to find out that Korea, nominated as one of the leading Internet police states in the world, is, in fact, suggesting a rather positive vision in this aspect. ([http://www.koreainformationsociety.com/2010/09/net-neutrality-view-from-korea.html]) Nonetheless, the Internet service of Korea led by three major mobile companies can be in any point thrown into a net neutrality controversy - especially since these corporates are pushing forward to new business frontiers of bigger profits. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 21:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought this was relative and very interesting:
Article referring to common carriage; http://www.economist.com/node/16106593 -- [[User:Alex|Alex]]

----

A follow-up to our discussion on limits to free speech and indirect political pressure on third-party private intermediaries. In this case, four senators are "requesting" Google, Apple, and RIM (maker of Blackberry) to remove apps from their device app stores that identify police DUI checkpoints. This article is the more passionate and argues for the freedom-of-speech angle: [http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Senators-Pressure-Mobile-App-Stores-to-Kill-Politically-Incorrect-Apps-337124/ Senators Pressure Mobile App Stores to Kill Politically Incorrect Apps.] While this one is more neutral: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20110323/tc_pcworld/groupsdefenddrunkdrivingcheckpointsoftware Groups Defend Drunk-driving Checkpoint Software.] But it certainly looks like we'll see more and more instances of individuals in congress finding favorite online bogeymen to show how patriotic/principled/family-valued/tough-on-crime/fill-in-the-blank they can be! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Smithbc Smithbc] thanks for pointing out this topic. There’s a couple of interesting discussion topics here. One is, if the purpose of drunken driving checkpoints is to get drunk drivers off the road, why would you combat a technology that would allow a potential offender to see active checkpoints before leaving the bar and maybe think twice, get a cab or stay home? It’s like people being pulled over for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to let others know about a speed trap or ticketing for speed trap scanners in cars. If the purpose is to get people to slow down, don’t all of these accomplish the goals as much as the presence of enforcement? Of course for this logic to be valid one must assume that the goal is keeping drunk drivers off the road and slowing people down as opposed to arrest quotas and the revenue associated with fines.

-- Putting the soapbox aside, a more focused question about the above related to the topics of class is: is it an effective policy tool to attack one set of social problems by diminishing the fundamental rights insured by the First Amendment or aren’t there many other innovative and direct ways? How about directing enforcement or remediation at the offenders instead of stripping the rest of society of basic rights in an attempt to control the actions of a few? It’s seems arcane. It’s akin to thinking you can cure someone who is anemic by using the ancient medical technique of bloodletting. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Classmates: Is it just me or are the subjects we are studying in this class some of the most real world relevant in any class you’ve taken? Every week it seems like the syllabus tracks the headlines. We studied Wikileaks while in the real world events directly related to the topic unfolded. We studied collaborative technologies and the power of the individual to influence the world through digital technologies while dramatic examples of technology propelling individuals as catalysts for social change and crowd sourced political revolutions continue to unfold across large regions of the globe.

This week we are studying the Internet Infrastructure and Regulation and the National Broadband Plan and in the news important implications of this topic shout out to us.

The reason I say these things is that I below are a couple of specific examples that I would like your thoughts on. May I have your opinion on the following?

Last class we talked about Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 commonly known as the ([http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]). One of the primary goals of the 1996 Telecom act was advertised as creating an environment within which competition would flourish.

Flourish it did, for a relatively short period of time, but in the long run, not so much. This week’s business news started with one of the few remaining independent major wireless carriers in the US agreeing to merger terms with a massive firm that is itself the contemporary result of a string of industry consolidations that have take place in the intervening years since the passage of the Telecom Act of 1996 (see: [http://wwww.networkworld.com/news/2011/032111-att-tmobile-duopoly.html Will AT&T's T-Mobile buy lead to a duopoly?])

In this week’s class we will be studying [http://www.broadband.gov/ National Broadband Plan] and again recent headlines including, [http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/FCC-Endorses-4G-Wireless-Standard-022411.html “FCC endorsed long term evolution (LTE) as the required standard for any government”] are about highly relevant topics. One of the goals of the National Broadband Plan is to, “ensure public safety” through addressing the, “lack a nationwide public safety mobile broadband communications network.”

One of the ways the National Broadband Plan proposed to address the lack of a nationwide public safety mobile broadband network was a proposal to auction off a block of spectrum known as the “D Block.” The D Block is a segment of the 700 MHz band that was proposed to be sold to a private entity that would use part of it for commercial purposes and as part of the purchase agreement, the organization would make available and manage part of the spectrum block in support of public safety communications. It’s a very complicated issue, but the bottom line was that the numbers didn’t work out and no private company stepped up to bid enough to cover the auction reserve (see [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/fcc-considering-new-d-block-auction-plan.ars FCC considering new D Block auction]).

This all brings me to a couple of questions I hope we can discuss. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and National Broadband Plan are OMNIBUS initiatives by government to address social challenges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill Omnibus] is a term that originated (in terms of its use by US government) in the 1970’s for the purpose of handling the national budget when large numbers of funding items would be consolidated into a single piece of legislation. (This is yet again another topic related to recent headlines see [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Omnibus-Spending-Bill-Busts-the-Budget-to-Pay-for-Pork Omnibus Spending Bill Busts the Budget to Pay for Pork ...])

My first question begins with, “is the omnibus approach a valid way to address challenges?” Can government effectively tackle challenging issues with all encompassing approaches such as omnibus intiatives and legislation? Isn't it more effective to solve complex problems by chunking them up in more manageable pieces?

Other questions we might discuss tie last week’s readings to this week’s topics. In [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/free_speech chapter 12 subsection] ''The Regulators of Speech: Distribution'', Professor Lessig talks about the idea of how the, “deeply held assumption at the core of our jurisprudence governing broadcasting technologies: Only a fixed amount of ‘spectrum’ is available for broadcasting,” and that the way to manage it is to, “allocate slices of it to users,” is a misconception routed in the decades ago understanding of the technology. Today’s technologies are vastly different and no longer constrain the use of broadcast spectrum in the same ways, yet governance mentality seems stuck in the 1920’s.

What are your thoughts about this idea that even in forward thinking initiatives including the National Broadband Plan policy making seeks to be progressive, yet often is trapped by historical context?
Thank you. I look forward to your thoughtful comments. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

During this week's reading I came across two interesting articles in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger as an exemplary initiation of the National Broadband Plan in action with full blanket coverage across the country, and the economical and technological potential of wireless advancements as the way of the future for broadband. [http://techliberation.com/2011/03/21/some-random-thoughts-on-att-t-mobile-merger/ Some Random Thoughts on AT&T/T-Mobile Merger] and [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20045239-94.html AT&T and T-Mobile--Listen Before You Judge] [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

====Thoughts on Net Neutrality and Open Access====
This week’s readings on the Omnibus Broadband Initiative, net neutrality and Internet freedom are pure advocacy papers. (Only the Berkman Center study of next generation connectivity conveyed a sense of impartiality.) Each presents big business or big government as the enemy of the people’s Internet. Each is correct to a degree, but neither paints a fair and complete picture. Theirer warns of inefficient bureaucracy should the government get involved, yet it was a government project from DARPA that created the Internet. The populist sounding organizations “SaveTheInternet.com” and “HandsOff.org” alternately blame the greedy motives of big businesses like AT&T and Google without discussing the natural competition between content providers and common carriers. The simple fact of the Internet is that traffic management has existed long before the Internet did – and it has been an integral part of the Internet for most of its life. The electric company and the telephone company each have business and residential service tiers. These public utilities are regulated by government to insure and even subsidize a minimum level of residential service. Business customers pay more for higher service levels.
This public utility model can serve the Internet as well. Just as the phone company cannot restrict who you can call (although you may have to pay more for long distance), no Internet service provider should block a particular site’s traffic (although there can be different data plans for capacity and speed). Many of us perform our own traffic shaping using “Quality of Service” settings (QoS) to grant higher priority “fast lane” access to voice-over-IP (Skype) while relegating email to the slow lane (big deal). In fact, we welcome the intervention of our ISP for filtering all that spam! I think the Berkman Center paper gets the concept right by emphasizing “open access” policy – i.e., that every business or other entity has the ability to connect to the infrastructure – but not mandating any policy beyond it. Promote innovation by allowing tiered service levels with an opportunity to profit from risk, while still guaranteeing basic access to all as a public good in the spirit of the First Amendment. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 02:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice thoughts Chris...I share your opinion as regard your last two sentences...To be honest, I did not know how far net neutrality issue is. Till now I though that it is more problem of future than issue of current days. I was wrong...Information about the blocking skype by T-Mobile in Germany in 2009 made me sure in how important the topic is. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_Germany T-Mobile blocking Skype in Germany])

== Links from Class ==
[http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Companies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in_Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case Fed Judge Kimba Wood Calls Record Companies' Request for Trillions in Damages Absurd in LimeWire Copyright Case] The most interesting part of the article is not the outrageousness of the record companies' claims, but the way the judge reached her decision. She stated that legislature could not have foreseen the way the internet would interact with copyright law, and thus you can't use legislative history. Reasonableness, instead, was the issue to rule on.

Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Yochai Benkler [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Ending the Internet’s Trench Warfare] March 20, 2010
"The Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan, announced last week, is aimed at providing nearly universal, affordable broadband service by 2020. And while it takes many admirable steps — including very important efforts toward opening space in the broadcast spectrum — it does not address the source of the access problem: without a major policy shift to increase competition, broadband service in the United States will continue to lag far behind the rest of the developed world." --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New America Foundation link concerning differing broadband service and pricing in the US vs that in Japan:
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/u_s_vs_japan_residential_internet_service_provision_pricing
The brief posted is from 2009 and contains a generous quantity of data which should serve to give you a clear idea of the difference in service availability between the US and a country which is considered to be half a generation ahead of the international standard.[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.govtech.com/newsletters/question-of-the-day-for-033111.html In a thread on Reddit.com yesterday, members of Google's Chrome development team shared how fast their office's Internet connection is. Can you guess the number?]

NPR brings us news from the House. The Rebublican majority voted to repeal rules that protect net neutrality. I doubt with will fly in the Senate like the article says.
Article: [http://www.npr.org/2011/04/08/135247658/house-votes-to-repeal-internet-access-rules House Votes To Repeal Internet Access Rules] [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Final Projects

2013-01-17T21:58:15Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare

2013-01-17T21:58:08Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''May 3'''

Cybersecurity has been identified as one of the greatest threats facing the United States today, but it is ill-defined and almost impossible to address. How can we frame this problem to better inspire solutions? How should government, military, businesses, and technologists approach the problem from different angles and do these different approaches work together?
<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* [http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/12/senator-cardin%E2%80%99s-bill-to-explore-isp-enforcement-of-digital-security/ Jack Goldsmith: Senator Cardin’s Bill to Explore ISP Enforcement of Digital Security]
* [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/ Zittrain, The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It; Chapter 3]
* [http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/17827_r1110_cyberwarfare_es.pdf Chatham House Report On Cyberwarfare - Executive Summary]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet Wikipedia entry on Stuxnet]

== Optional Readings ==
* Jack Goldsmith, [http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/1208_4th_amendment_goldsmith.aspx The Cyberthreat, Government Network Operations, and the Fourth Amendment]
* Jane Holl Lute and Bruce McConnell, [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/dhs-op-ed/ Op-Ed: A Civil Perspective on Cybersecurity]
* Zittrain, [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=freedom-and-anonymity Freedom and Anonymity]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

* [http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/967/ On Cyber Warfare]
A little early for this, but I would like to share this nice paper written by analysts and researchers at Chatham House. It's pretty fundamental, I would recommend it to anyone who encounters this subject for the very first time. --[[User:Jastify|Jastify]] 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
: Great recommendation. I've added the executive summary to the required readings list. --[[User:Dardia|Dardia]] 23:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==

Copyright in Cyberspace

2013-01-17T21:58:04Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 5'''

The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute their contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.

Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, which has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") allow Internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if the ISPs expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but some argue that the statutory mechanism can chill innovative, constitutionally-protected speech.

This class provides an overview of some major copyright law concepts and takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/IS2011-4.5.11-Copyright.pdf Slides: Copyright in Cyberspace]'''

==Assignments==

== Required Readings ==
* [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")]
* [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")]
* [http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture] (pp. 1-20)
* Viacom v. YouTube: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/technology/19youtube.html?pagewanted=1&sq=viacom&st=cse&scp=2 "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)], [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/what-the-viacom-vs-youtube-verdict-means-for-copyright-law183.html What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law]
* Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits: [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign], [http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/business-notebook/2011/mar/19/righthaven-lawsuits-backfire-reduce-protections-ne/ Las Vegas Sun, Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers], and skim [http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/ this].
* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/news%20aggregation%20white%20paper.pdf The Rise of the News Aggregator: Legal Implications and Best Practices]

== Optional Readings ==
* [http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2011/02/02/super-bust-due-process-and-domain-name-seizure.html Super Bust: Due Process and Domain Name Seizure]
* [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1 Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)]
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (full report optional)
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?_r=1 "Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon" (J. Eligon, NY Times, 9/8/08)]
* [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/830/index.html New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use]
* [http://www.eff.org/files/20030926_unsafe_harbors.pdf EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/15/concrete-steps-congress-can-take-protect-americas-intellectual-property The White House Blog: Concrete Steps Congress Can Take to Protect America's Intellectual Property]
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

For the mind map software, I found [http://vue.tufts.edu/ VUE] easy to use. I was especially impressed by the rendering in PDF. Everything fit neatly on the page. This was a big surprise after being a Microsoft Office User ;-). Also, PC Users, if you need to print to PDF, [http://www.pdfforge.org/ PDF Creator] is wonderful. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of Edwin Howard Armstrong in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, is especially disturbing due in part to his unfortunate demise. FM radio was systematically repressed by RCA and the government (FCC); for the benefit of RCA (to keep it's market share with AM radio).The fight between RCA and Edwin Armstrong ultimately broke him down, but this story has repeated itself in many forms throughout history. RCA benefited from AM radio at the expense of millions of radio listeners who would have been able to enjoy clear FM transmissions. In this particular case, it lead to the direct death of the inventor and the short changing of the radio listening public. What happens in other cases where lives are at stake? Would a pharmaceutical company react the same way to protect their financial interests in the event of an important cure being developed? What if the cure was developed using prior pharmaceutical patents? Would “common sense revolt at the idea?”1 [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
1 Lawrence Lessig, ( New York: Penguin Press, 1994) Free Culture, 2

The Righthaven case cites some factors working against the plaintiffs, one of which is the fact that they sought copyright protection with the specific intent to file suit. While I certainly don't think their actions are on the whole noble, it does seem a bit challenging that copyright protection does not require registration. If registration is mere legal formality, but is also required in order to file a suit, it seems unfair to subject Righthaven to scrutiny on that particular basis. If a judge is going to deem such actions as dubious, why not require registration at the outset? [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to discern the common sense in today’s copyright law. It certainly makes sense that some expressions have value, and the author or assignee of copyright should have the ability to control the use of their valuable intellectual property. There’s a difference, however, between the deliberate misappropriation of copyrighted material for commercial gain (or infliction of harm), and the casual innocent use of copyrighted material by an individual. If I buy a newspaper and share it with several people on the train there’s no harm to the publisher. If I read an article on their web site and email a copy to my friends, that action should be fine too. While a blog has the potential for more viewers, it seems like a simple extension of social interaction. I think it’s a travesty that Righthaven was able to prosecute these kinds of claims. In contrast, the big commercial cases like Viacom v. YouTube, AFP v. Google, AP v. All Headline News and Gatehouse Media v. NYT all had a substantial monetary stake in the creation and dissemination of intellectual property. Those seem to me to be the more suitable parties for questions of copyright infringement. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Classmates,

Thank you for another thoughtful, engaging and energetic discussion both in class an online last evening. The topics discussed are today hyper relevant to all of us and as [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Earboleda Earboleda] points out in the case of Armstrong and FM radio have been the source of commerce, intrigue and even tragedy for time uncertain. From the business tactics of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst William Randolph Hearst] to [http://www.ascap.com/ ASCAP] suing the Girl Scouts for singing "[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html God Bless America]" and far beyond none of us are immune to the ramifications. Not to dwell on it, but as I said last evening even the dead.

In a strange coincidence last night when I got home, I sat down to grab a bite and flipped on CNBC. The show "[http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/ 60 Minutes on CNBC]" was rerunning the segment “[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/19/60minutes/main6598800.shtml How Celebs Make A Living After Death]”. It told how Attorney Mark Roesler, who wished to become a famous entertainment agent but because he lived in Indiana couldn’t find that many big named clients, latched upon the idea of representing notable figures who have passed away. For almost the past thirty years he has turned that idea into an industry.

Although I didn’t articulate this as well as I had hoped in class, I am conflicted over this. First it seems creepy to me that someone should take the life’s work of transformative figures from Einstein to Michael Jackson and use that for profit. I’m all for profit from one’s contribution, but affixing the face of Einstein, crossed eyed and sticking out his tongue to a tee shirt, doesn’t seem to me to be that much of a contribution to society and more so something that someone should be able to appropriate. As [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/User:ChrisSura?redlink=1 Chris] points out, even more so, prevent the rest of us from also doing so without paying a royalty (if the tee shirt maker also had written above the image their correction of a mistake in one of Einstein's theorems, perhaps).

On the other hand, Mr. Roesler has created an industry from which many people today make a living, feed their families and send their kids to great institutions like Harvard where they are able to have engaging conversations dissecting the subject. There’s also the point that if someone is going to make money of the dead, shouldn’t some of that money go to their heirs. Well maybe yes and maybe no. Who knows what the dearly departed would have wished for their post mortem profits. I suspect that today there are a lot of people getting rich in part due to the legacies of people like Mother Teresa and other who never spent a night knee deep in filth caring for the sick and dying. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So sorry we did not get to spend more time discussing the Viacom v.YouTube case last night. When a company is abusing the legal process to further their own interests (as in Viacom wanting to buy YouTube) by their own employees posting copyrighted videos on the site, the focus should not be on YouTube but on Viacom. There is an old legal saying, bad cases make bad law. When new legal precedents are being established, one would hope for better facts.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 19:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

== Links ==
Interesting question: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-have-media-companies-destroyed-their-copyrights-with-the-share-button/# Have Media Companies Destroyed Their Copyrights With The ‘Share’ Button?] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not our topic this week, but AFLAC used crowdsourcing to create their advertising commercial. Very cool idea in a closely regulated industry - http://www.youtube.com/user/aflac#p/a/f/0/FfusU_MB1ew [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 19:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2013-01-17T21:58:03Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''April 12'''

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyApril12.pdf Slides: Control and Code: Privacy Online]

<onlyinclude>
==Readings==

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chapter2.pdf Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]
* [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html Solveig Singleton, Privacy as Censorship (CATO)]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html Noam Cohen, It’s Tracking Your Every Move and You May Not Even Know (NYTimes, March 26, 2011)]

==Optional Readings==

* [http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2010/04/02/segments/152890 NPR On the Media Story "Anonymous Justice"]
* [http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]
* [https://www.socialtext.net/codev2/privacy Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0: Privacy]
* http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==

'''Regarding Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 295'''

So, I'm struggling with this analysis piece from the Cato Institute. I used to consider myself to be a libertarian; unfortunately, I'm not sure that term means what I want it to mean anymore. Suffice it to say that some of the core ideas in the Cato Institute piece have resonance for me; namely, the idea that one does not own information, that there is no right ''not'' be annoyed or offended, and that there is (significant) societal and economic value in businesses being able to access information concerning their customers (the Slate article I posted below goes into this). That said, the Cato Institute seems to be taking the (rather undesirable) position that there *is* no "right to privacy", and the piece itself seems (to my mind) to be riddled with a number of false equivalencies, leaps in reasoning, and glaring oversights. It seems to unduly privilege one portion of the citizenry (those engaged in business) against another (those engaged in consumption). Now, there is nothing wrong with running a business, or turning a profit (verily, the opposite - such activity is key to both individual and national well-being), but I am skeptical at the idea that direct marketing counts as "free speech" and should therefore be immune to government regulation (indeed, there are numerous precedents for limiting marketing speech), that industry self-regulation has proven adequate, or that concerns about privacy, fraud, and identity theft should be so casually dismissed.

'''On the ownership of information:''' clearly we do not “own” information about ourselves; information is not property in the traditional sense, but that does not mean we cannot control the release of certain information under certain circumstances. The article mentions confidentiality for medical records, for instance – but then seems to act as if this is the only sort of information that can or should receive protection. Yet there are other categories of information which we can and do privilege – court proceedings and criminal records, for instance, can be sealed in some cases. While it may be lawful to obtain and publish such information by other means, this is not the sort of free access to information that the article seems to envision. The paper compares gathering (and then selling) statistical information on clients with – of all things – gossip, which (to my mind) is nothing like gathering statistical information. Gossip is a natural social occurrence based on casual observation and the relation of second or third hand accounts. It is nothing like using instruments (in this case computer programs) to take detailed recordings of a person’s circumstances and shopping habits and then processing them mathematically to yield commercially valuable statistics. Gossip is an inevitability that cannot be prevented, or even regulated, beyond the use of social norms (legal means for extreme cases, such as libel, have been shown to be remarkably ineffective). Regulation of business practices, either by law or by voluntary codes of business ethics, is, on the other hand, not merely feasible, but common. Furthermore, no contract (save perhaps the ''social contract'') exists between the causal observer and those observed. In contrast, a contractual relationship exists between the consumer of a good or service and the provider thereof – contracts which are subject to regulation by law. I reject the false equivalency drawn between gossip and the gathering of marketing data, and with it a large portion of the Cato Institute’s argument, which attempts to convince the reader that such data collection is not only similar too, but in light of its greater accuracy, more beneficial to the subject being observed. We can make this rejection, however, without disputing that such marketing information may be of critical value to the business operator, or bring other, legitimate benefits to the consumer.

'''On the validity of privacy concerns:''' Furthermore, I find the paper in question entirely too dismissive of consumers’ privacy concerns – as if large corporate marketing databases posed little to no increased risk for those who’s information they contain. Just today, I heard news of a large corporate email database being hacked into (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/04/04/banks-retailers-warn-customers-after-email-database-hacked/), exposing the customers of several major firms to the potential of spam and fraudulent email. This is not the first such occurrence; indeed, we have seen much more sensitive bank account and credit card data stolen from financial institutions. The Cato institute seems to think that the abuse of cooperate databases can be adequately prevented by industry standards, existing legal penalties, and that the only real danger is that posed by the government. To further its case, it argues that many instances of criminal abuse are essentially inevitable – making the spectacular leap of logic that since certain abuses are not 100% preventable, that there is little value in attempting to increase legal protection against them. This is fallacious at best, disingenuous at worst. It is often said that there is very little one can do to prevent a determined assassin from assassinating a public figure; yet we do not throw up our hands and, say, allow the President to travel unescorted. On the contrary, the Secret Service and other government agencies spend an enormous amount of time, energy, and money attempting to safeguard key public officials by preventing or otherwise making such assassination attempts as difficult as possible. Likewise – to take a considerably more mundane example – even the best bike-lock will not prevent the most determined and organized of bike thieves from stealing or stripping a parked bike. That does not mean we encourage cyclists to leave their bikes unlocked and unattended on the street. I am willing to accept the argument that there is a price to be paid for greater privacy rights and safeguards, and that no such measures provide perfect protection, but I am not willing to entertain the notion that such safeguards are doomed to failure and therefore are of no value to the consumer, and to society as a whole. I am also troubled by the piece’s treatment of direct marketing; namely the glaring omission of any mention of spam email. While direct marketing is no doubt crucial to many businesses, and more tailored marketing would no doubt be a blessing to many consumers, when it comes to email, “junk mail” or “spam” can be crippling to the very businesses who’s interests the Cato Institute seems to have in mind; sorting though hundreds of spam messages a day can have serious impact on productivity for employees who make heavy use of electronic communications as part of their work duties – increasingly efficient spam filters help, but they are not solely responsible for reductions of spam mail; rather governmental regulation and prosecution of spammers has played a vital role in this. I doubt that many recipients of spam mail would be favorably predisposed to the argument that such mail constituted a category direct marketing constitutionally protected as “free speech”. We are not a talking about mere “annoyance” here, as the Cato Institute suggests, but rather a phenomenon that new technology has allowed to grow to such proportion that it has a serious impact on people’s lives, let alone its role as a conduit for illegal and unethical predatory activity. The government is commonly held to have a responsibility to protect citizens from unwanted and intrusive harassment by other private citizens. While the “Lands End” catalogue may not fall into this category, spam mail, as well as persistent telemarketing calls at inappropriate times, increasingly are seen to do so. As a consumer I am inclined to think that the rights of business to conduct their business need to be balanced against the rights of consumers to conduct their lives without undo interference.

'''On the government and business ethics:''' The Cato Institute is quite correct to point out the special danger presented by the government and government information gathering, with the unique powers of enforcement it holds over the citizenry. I applaud this healthy skepticism; however, I think the institute’s libertarian biases have blinded it to potential for abuse posed by corporate databases, both by corporations themselves and – in the most glaring omission of the piece – abuse of said databases by the government with the acquiescence (if not outright support) of their private administrators. We have already seen such (mis)use of corporate marketing databases in our current reading: eloquently detailed by Christopher Soghoian on his weblog (http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html). Keep in mind that these databases were never intended to be used for surveillance purposes, but rather intended for just the sort of marketing uses which the Cato Institute is advocating in favor of. The purity of purpose the institute ascribes to business – that is, the pursuit of profit – did not prevent these companies from secretly divulging customer information for (what the institute itself would surely see as) abuse by government agencies. And why should it have? If businesses are conceived for the sole purpose of making profit, then why should we expect them to do anything but what they have done? – namely seize the opportunity to turn the sale of consumer information to the government into a profitable revenue source. The only potential curb on this sort of behavior would be the ire these corporations’ customer base, but since the widespread sale of geo-location and other private information is largely hidden from the public no outcry is possible. Furthermore, while I am sure that the Cato Institute would be quick to demand new restrictions on the government concerning the acquisition of such information (judicial oversight through a system of warrants, and laws requiring transparency in reporting), I am equally sure that the Institute would casually dismiss any need for tighter regulation on the business end. This is troubling to me. Industry self-regulation is only valuable as far as it achieves the desired results; it is only too easy for self-regulation to be corrupted into a self-serving obfuscation. And, as much as we should respect business’ (entirely necessary) role as an engine of societal growth and prosperity, we can still demand that said businesses conform to certain codes of business ethics. Requiring that businesses respect the privacy of their customers by providing clear explanations of how and to what extent customer information will be used, requesting permission for certain uses, and abiding by terms of service agreements which govern these uses is entirely is, to me, entirely reasonable. Telling customers that they can just “opt out” of internet or cell phone use if they are concerned about privacy seems to me to be about as sensible as relying on abstinence-only education to prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted teen pregnancy.

'''Conclusion:'''

To synthesize the thoughts presented here:
1) A certain degree of personal privacy is desirable and should be protected.
2) Businesses have a legitimate need for marketing information gathered from consumers who use their services.
3) Therefore, efforts must be made to balance these two nontrivial concerns.
4) Self-regulation is insufficient to guarantee freedom from abuse of corporate consumer information databases.
5) Both the government and private corporations should be restricted in this regard.

Highly tailored direct marketing is the wave of the future. This development cannot be stopped; neither should we attempt to stop it, as it promises significant benefits to both business and consumer. This sort of analysis (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/how-the-american-man-spends-money/236888/) is not only critical to business, but can tell us important things about society as a whole. However, this does not mean we need to, or should, sacrifice the entirety of our personal privacy rights on the altar of innovation. Privacy is an important issue, and it behooves us to define with a degree of clarity to what extent a citizen’s personal privacy is to be protected. It is naïve to believe that such protection is of little benefit to society, or that the natural (unregulated) course of evolution will adequately provide for its existence. This is not a call for heavy handed regulation; rather it is a call for serious, objective thought on the subject. I am not sure that the Cato Institute’s advocacy piece (as valuable as it its insights might be) qualifies in this regard.
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

'''RE: Privacy as Censorship ''' (typing this on my Blackberry, sorry for any typos)
Singleton says that, "...value does not somehow inhere in a person's name.
Rather, the activities of marketers and list compilers create the value of the name." Really? If the name wasn't worth anything, why collect it? The miner doesn't create the value of the gold, he is mearly the conduit. My name is valuable to marketers because of who I am and what I have accomplished in life. The sum total of what we each accomplish and the labor we expend to produce the income that the marketers seak to extract from each of us among other things is what creates the value of a name.[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 04:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
[http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/get-ring-us-europe-vow-bash-out-internet-pers Get in the ring: US, Europe vow to bash out Internet personal privacy protection] --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 21:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New York Times op-ed on new privacy legislation being considered by Sen. Kerry: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/opinion/19sat2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=privacy%20on%20the%20internet&st=cse --[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)]]

Slate's (skeptical) take on online privacy:
http://www.slate.com/id/2290719
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a link to the FTC filing mentioned in the above article (regarding Google Buzz): http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/google.shtm
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The internet in action: "My Dad is Li Gang!", courtesy of Know Your Meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-dad-is-li-gang-%E6%88%91%E7%88%B8%E6%98%AF%E6%9D%8E%E5%88%9A
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 06:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

iPhone or iSpy? Feds, Lawyers Tackle Mobile Privacy:
"A proposed class-action lawsuit filed last week alleges that Apple and a handful of app makers are invading user privacy by accessing personal data from customers’ smartphones without permission and sharing it with third-party advertisers." -- http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/iphone-ispy/
[[User:Alex|Alex]] 5:21, 12 April 2011

A related link profiling [http://www.strategy-business.com/article/11110?gko=64e54&cid=20110222enews Generation C] who may have fewer privacy qualms. Also, feel free to join us in Cambridge for beers after class next week on 4/19. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 01:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Collective Action and Decision-making

2013-01-17T21:58:00Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; text-align: center;">
<big>'''Syllabus'''</big>
{| border="0" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" style="background:#eeeeff; text-align: left;"
|
* [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction|Jan 25]]
* [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet|Feb 1]]
* [[New Economic Models|Feb 8]]
* [[Peer Production and Collaboration|Feb 15]]
* [[Collective Action and Decision-making|Feb 22]]
* [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information|Mar 1]]
* [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech|Mar 8]]
* Mar 15 - ''No class''
|
* [[Regulating Speech Online|Mar 22]]
* [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation|Mar 29]]
* [[Copyright in Cyberspace|Apr 5]]
* [[Control and Code: Privacy Online|Apr 12]]
* [[Internet and Democracy|Apr 19]]
* [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel|Apr 26]]
* [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare|May 3]]
* [[Final Project|May 10]] - ''No class''
|}
<br clear="right" />
</div>
'''February 22'''

Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.

[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/InternetSocietyFeb22.pdf Slides: Internet Economics & Business + Collective Decision Making]

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus|Assignment 2]] due

<onlyinclude>
== Readings ==
* James Surowiecki, [http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)]
**[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/books/review/0523books-mclemee.html?ex=1400644800&en=43bc95eb638bfed2&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND NYT Review]

* [http://ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=1125 Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia] Great summary of the issues in the book.

== Optional Readings ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers Federalist Papers] published under the pseudonym Publius.
* [http://www.blogpulse.com/papers/2005/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Divided They Blog] - a paper showing trackbacks between political blogs, mentioned by Ethan Zuckerman in his review of Cass Sunstein's Infotopia
</onlyinclude>

== Class Discussion ==
This week’s readings prove that groupthink is a powerful but not infallible force. Surowiecki tells us that the average of group answers always outperforms individuals over time. (He uses the example of how the audience of Who Wants to be a Millionaire was right 91% of the time when polled.) Zuckerman, citing the Condorcet Jury Theorem, retorts that the case is true only if the individuals in the group tend to be right more often than not. (Otherwise the group answer would probably be wrong 91% of the time.) Collective decision making works only when each individual is more likely than not to make the correct decision on her own.
We expect an informed individual is better equipped to make a correct decision than an ignorant one, so where do we get our information? The distinction between the Federalist Papers and the political blogosphere is telling. While today’s political pundits advocate for their positions with at least the same fervor (if not eloquence) as Hamilton, Madison and Jay, their audiences receive messages differently. In the 1700’s newspapers printed federalist and anti-federalist letters alongside each other while their readers evaluated both sides of the question. Today’s blog readers select their feeds which likely matches their predispositions. The “information cocoon” is real. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I found the readings to highlight the differences that have become so polarizing in our society. Is this because the "crowdsourcing" attitude is working against strategic thought and boosting mob mentality instead? Maybe, to Yu Ri's point, people are being more closed in their beliefs because there is just too much information and we are on overload. Humans in their natural way will always regroup and go to where the comfort level is....my hope is that a middle ground is found so that true intelligent discourse may again be as prevalent as it was when a man got on a soapbox in a town square one hundred years ago. [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC) camcloughlin

I have praised the emergence of personalized media, so-called "The Daily Me," as the contribution to efficiency in information gathering and classifying. Thus, it was an perplexing confrontation of reading Sustein's assertion on information cocoon dwellers. It is true that people like to hear and see what they want to hear and see and that principle applies to the online activities to some degree. While I was pondering on this notion, a certain idea came up to me: now there is this platform for diversity to spread its wings, but aren't people being more obstinate about their beliefs and tenets? It is just that I could hardly find the interchanges between liberals and conservatives in the Internet forums, except those with acrid animosity. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the posted below concern about the purpose and structure is fair enough to draw our attention to the meaning of the curriculum; the meaning that makes a difference between well-informed person and well-educated person. No objections, of course, to the administrators of this course, they did marvelous research on relevant literature, but as some of us began noticing, the material does not follow logically to build up a skill. I know that in some countries people are spending many years to learn how to properly relate material to students, not simply make them memorize everything. In order to guess on our own what pedagogy might have been behind this giant sheer volume, we must align the material in order so that each concept will serve as a preamble for the next one, and all key terms then will be logically connected to the main scheme. It seems that after sorting out all major concepts from the minor key terms, we are aiming to arrive at the issue of ideological, society based, differences within one giant infrastructure called the internet. After examining most ideologically conflicting dimensions, we must derive a method that will keep catalytic reactions between those most extreme ideologies under control. This method, I assume, should include political, policy-based, and technological instruments. In order to build these instruments we must rely on our predecessors whose remarkable writings we have at our disposal. As some of you have already noticed that some of the writings are of a high caliber and some are of a low and average; nevertheless, they do contribute substance to the sphere of the course. It is therefore crucial to distinguish a high caliber conceptual pieces of writing from the low or mediocre type of writings. Then, we should align them in the right sequence so that we can apply our reasoning, not only memory. I guess this is as far as I should go because as we know, some of the writers are working at the Berkman Center - the host of the course. It will be unethical from my side to point out on the perplexity they may create.

Perhaps for those who has enough imagination, imagine that after all readings that we read so far, we are exposed only to several stones on a giant planet in the giant universe with many other planets connected to it. There are terabytes of books on the net. There is so much to read about and discover. Take the DARPA Internet Program archive alone [http://www.darpa.mil/internetbibliography.html] or the internet society resources [http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml] and they will extrapolate our horizons even farther. If we will search the archives of other countries, we would have not enough lifetime to read everything that is equally worth reading as our class material. It is important however, to have a wise conventional opinion not only about the modern concepts, but also about classic definitions, and Wisdom of Crowds by Surowiecki is an excellent emitter of the "old school" discoveries. His book ''Wisdom of Crowds'' so as ''Wealth of the Networks'' is built on the original concepts he interprets. In the book ''Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'' the Scottish journalist Charles Mackay writes about the first conglomerates of people, not connected with internet, but infatuated by the same idea of rapid enrichment through the stock market. In the first hundred pages author describes the most devastating financial bubbles and schemes instigated by John Law, the son of the banker and a creative financier, who in his ''Proposals and Reasons for Constituting a Council of Trade'', which he presented to the British Parliament, proposed to issue a loan-for-shares based instrument which has failed a number of times and at several countries due to the rapid and large demand for one type of shares issued for sale. If we think of a stock buyers as of the web sight users, we can understand better the concept of the collective action and decision making process. Surowiecki, of course, makes an excellent example of the bias in the herd instinct when he describes the authority bias in the decision by investigative group of the shuttle's catastrophe and in the coordination of other groups of people driven by the common goal. I am confident that the experts opinion and the seer-sucker theory is in value when the majority is trying to think. It is exactly what people are trying to do in this course: people are trying to find a cognizable way to comprehend the material by cooperating and coordinating within the group. Nevertheless, I personally believe that ''Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'' is by default the strongest platform to base our understanding both of the concepts of the internet and of the digital economics of the society. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 01:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to article in today's NY Times regarding Egypt's shut down during the revolution of internet within its borders:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/technology/16internet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
<<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)>>

In reading the Surowiecki excerpt and the summary on Zuckerman's Infotopia I think it is apparent that they are discussing apples and oranges. Surowiecki is concentrating on the crowd's ability to accurately determine a correct answer to a specific question governed by a certain criteria (e.g. how many beans in this jar or which one of these four possible answers is correct). Zuckerman, on the other hand, is looking at the human behavior and ideology aspect which has no defined criteria or "right" answer. When asking the crowd what their opinion is regarding a particular issue the answers will undoubtedly depend on the individual's personal beliefs and past experiences which vary greatly from person to person. If the ideological question is framed in such a way that there is a limited selection of answers, such as in polling, the individuals will gravitate towards the answer which most fits their personal belief. While this will allow for an analysis of what the "majority" of the crowd prefers it does not necessarily mean that majority is correct. Once the human condition is allowed to enter the equation the ability to determine what is correct vs. what is preferred is gone.
--[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 10:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'''Dear''' Fellow Internet and Society Classmates:

I am writing with a proposal. February 22 will be our forth meeting as a class which marks the milestone that we are more than one quarter of the way through the material we will study during the semester. During the last several classes we have studied examples of commons based production including Wikipedia and we are using a wiki based tool for asynchronous class discussions. Not to take anything away from the quality of the content of those contributions, one thing that has been missing is a structure and purpose.

My proposal is that starting this week we begin to put into practice some of the things that we have learned to date. That is, below I have constructed a set of notes on what I have taken away from the class. I invite you in the spirit of Wikipedia to edit, comment upon, contribute to and in other ways improve what I have written in a collaborative search for a common understanding of the materials presented in this course. If you are so inclined, I ask you to follow a small set of basic tenets that are described on the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/edit/Talk:Collective_Action_and_Decision-making Discussion page].

I hope that you will join me in this project. I believe a commons based approach to summarize what we have learned so far will benefit us all in translating the great information Rob and David have introduced to us. No two of us have walked away from any class discussion nor reading, nor listening, nor viewing with the exact same perception of what has been discussed. Below presents a opportunity for us all, those who gather in Cambridge and those who participate at a distance, to come to a closer mutual understanding.

Join me below to flesh out what I have begun. Add references that I have missed, correct statements that are in accurate, add your unique insight so that we can all come to a better common understanding.
Thank you in advance for your willingness to participate.

Guy --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly count on my support and participation! I think it's a great idea to summarize what we have learned 'in a mass collaboration approach'; nonetheless, I consider that it would be much better if we can create another page to aggregate all the information from lectures apart from opinions or questions of the discussion section. I might have interpreted your purpose in an unexpected way, so please do not hesitate to share your brilliant ideas! Thank you. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 08:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"If each of us have less than a 50% chance of being right about a decision, a group of us will be worse at making a correct decision, with our probability of accuracy increasing towards zero as the size of the group increases." [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2006/11/30/cass-sunsteins-infotopia/]

I thought this quote highlighted what could be a hurdle for Wikipedia, insofar as the potential for an unlimited pool of contributors. While it does not appear to be a problem at present (if anything, they seem eager to include more individuals in the project), I'd be curious if and when they will reach a tipping point. - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/User:Yu_Ri Yu Ri] , Thank you for your kind words. You have interpreted my purpose exactly. Are you suggesting that the topic of Internet and Society would make a good Wikipedia article? If so, I agree. I checked and someone looks to have begun [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_and_Society one on this exact topic], but contributed only a small amount and has not been modified the informing since 2009. Would you suggest we pick up where that author left off? --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 00:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Guy,That sounds awesome! Probably we can reconstruct the contents of the article and start filling out relevant information in no time. I would be happy to contribute my effort in improving or re-editing this article on Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me with any suggestion regarding this project. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 02:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
++++

To use the term from economics, this course is built “on the shoulder of giants.” The three main giants are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zittrain Jonathan Zittrain], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig Lawrence Lessig], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yochai_Benkler Yochai Benkler]. The course is also supplemented by a number of other influential thinkers who will be mentioned below.

Each of these individuals has contributed a block in the foundation of a set of tools that we students can use to understand the effects that digital technologies are having on our society, culture, government and personal lives today and into the future.

Rob told us that the best way to absorb this material is to begin with Zittrain, progress to Lessig and build to Benkler. Along the way we will interject relevant references to other influential thinkers.

In his book, [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/6 The Future of the Internet: and how to stop it] Jonathan Zittrain begins by describing how the Internet emerged at a time when inexpensive fully customizable multiuse computers became available to large numbers of technology tinkerers. The proliferation of these plastic (in the sense of the word that means malleable) platforms combined with unexpected success of the Internet Protocol for connecting these powerhouses of innovation together to link people across time and distance allowed the property of Generativity to emerge.

Defined as, “[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generativity an independent ability to create, generate, or produce new content unique to that system without additional help or input from the system's original creators]” the generative properties of the Internet allowed it to attain “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/8#2 mainstream dominance] over [http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/8#1 proprietary barons such as AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.]”

Zittrain describe the following five properties of generativity as important to our discussion: Leverage, Adaptability, Ease of mastery, Accessibility and Transferability. Important to beginning to build our model, Zittrain describes how the “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#1 hourglass architecture]” of the internet facilitated generativity through a layering property that broke the network into three logical layers. The hourglass is an intellectual concept and not a tangible thing. It helps people who wish to create innovations to focus on their specialty without needing to be concerned how other pieces of the puzzle that are necessary to make things happen work. Layers communicate with each other based on a set of properties that are native to each layer and understood by the others. In essence a digital [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto Esperanto] or commonly understood language between layers.

The model features “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 an ‘application layer,’ representing the tasks people might want to perform on the network].” The foundation of the hourglass is “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 the ‘physical layer,’ the actual wires or airwaves over which data will flow].” The middle layer is where the true ingenuity of the model lives. It is “[http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13#3 the ‘protocol layer,’ which establishes consistent ways for data to flow so that the sender, the receiver, and anyone necessary in the middle can know the basics of who the data is from and where the data is going].”

Combined the power of the plastic processing platforms on the edge and unrestrained flow of information across the digital network unleashed a wave of innovation and creativity never before seen in the history of humanity. There is more important information in Zittrain’s about how the combination of economic, cultural security concerns and other forces are today combining to extinguish the generative nature that the Internet created. I am sure we will return to these topics later in the course.

The next element of our foundational model comes from Lawrence Lessig. In his book [http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf Code: version 2.0] professor Lessig describes that the Internet is what it is because of decisions that have been made by the designers of the system about how the system will work. This means that the Internet is not of some natural evolution or from some divine design, it is a creation of human invention.

In the early days of the Internet there was an overriding ethos that the Internet was ungovernable and beyond regulation. Notable thinkers including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow John Perry Barlow] spoke “behalf of the future” to say, “[http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~zs/decl.html no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement .]“

Lessig defeats the claim of no methods of control by describing a combination of factors including commercial motivations, user acquiescence to improve convenience, security, regulatory and other concerns that have resulted in innovation in the application layer that in turn has resulted in the implementation of features that are creating the opportunity for significant control.

We also discussed how [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu Columbia Law School Tim Wu] showed not only do laws of local jurisdictions impose regulation on the internet and its users so do local geographical cultural and other factors [http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=961].

Lessig describes how the cumulative effect of Markets, Laws, Social norms result in the equation that Code = law. In other words, the decisions made by those who create the underlying code that makes the Internet possible result in a cumulative effect of establishing governance. The format of that governance is a direct result of the conscious choices made by those who design and implement the system. The decisions on what goes into the code are a result of Markets, Laws and Social norms.

The third element of the foundation of the way we are describing the effects of digital technologies on our society comes from the seminal work by Yochai Benkler, [http://yupnet.org/benkler/ The Wealth of Networks]. Benkler informs us that digital technologies are creating an environment in which a, "[http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/396 radical decentralization of capitalization and computing resources is allowing every connected person, some 600 million to a billion people, to have the means to engage in info knowledge and cultural production].” Benkler argues that the “industrial information economy” is giving way to a new model of human contribution based upon a “commons” approach to innovation.

He painstakingly documents how the system for protecting what is commonly known as intellectual property that was originally meant to foster economic growth is actually considerable less efficient on a macroeconomic level than a model in which innovation is freely contributed.

Benkler argues that the prevailing theory of protecting an individual and organization’s right to control how their innovations are used (and influence how they are compensated for such use) creates such considerable transaction costs for those who might otherwise build upon previous innovations to create new products, services, works of art and other contributions to the betterment of society as a whole that they choose not to do so because of the imposed cost burden.
Benkler provides numerous examples that show how a commons based approach has resulted in significantly better, richer and more beneficial layers of innovation.

[http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php# Kevin Kelly] demonstrates that in a “Benkleresque” world where information might be freer and ideas less subject to the artificial scarcity created by “Intellectual Property and Copyright” laws overall wealth in the economy would be greater due to the generative effects discussed by Zittrain. Kelly states that producers would still be enriched because people are still be willing to pay monies associated to various factor involved in the conveyance of information. In additional new forms of distribution would further increase overall good.

Along the way we have also talked about several recurring themes. These include:

- Internet infrastructure which is foundational, multipurpose;
- Innovation and public spaces
- Networks, openness, distributed, decentralized
- Digital disruption: challenges to existing institutions

Under the topic of Digital disruption, we talked about how the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble dot-com bubble]" a surge in financial speculation in digital technologies from roughly 1995 to 2000 resulted in a financial market crash that disrupted economies across the globe.

We discussed how Chris Anderson, author and editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine has shown how digital technologies have unleashed a “[http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html long tail of innovation]” that is resulting in fundamental shifts in markets.

[http://forum-network.org/lecture/boston-ideas-2005-eric-von-hippel Eric von Hippel] shows, in relative parallel to the Benkler proposition, that digital technologies are empowering society and increasing social welfare by shifting innovation up into the user layer. That is digital technologies are shifting the source of innovations from the traditional manufacturer to user generated creation. He shows how end users, who know intimately more about the ways something is important and how it can be improved are becoming a dynamic source for new creation and improvement.

(New post) Ethan Zuckerman's review of ''Infotopia'' made me want to read Sunstein's book. The breadth of topics that Sunstein explores is impressive. From my organizational behavior perch, I especially liked the coverage of group think and cocooning. As an added bonus, Zuckerman contributes another layer of insight in his treatment of Sunstein's themes.--[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey all! I found this really interesting little study I found on a woman's personal blog, which she called "[http://kirbybits.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/here-is-a-project-troll-data-analysis/ Troll! Data! Analysis!]," that I thought might be interesting to share. Courtney Stanton wrote a post on her WordPress blog about women, haters, and rape culture in online gaming, and was so astounded by the responses to the post that she decided to do a wee study on the trolls of those comments. I thought it was neat to see her methodology, how she broke things down and the conclusions she came to - basically, that trolls contribute nothing (which we all already knew, but now we know the characteristics of their nothingness), and that allowing thoughtful responses to a contentious topic, whether or not you agree with them, can actually foster respectful conversation and be good for you and your blog. I thought this was particularly relevant giving the theme of "cocooning" in this week's readings. Would it be appropriate for me to add this under the "Links" section of this page, with a little description and a disclaimer that it is student-submitted and not from the profs/TAs? --[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 19:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In earlier discussions today, there was a mention of manufacturers such as Apple trying to ensure that customers do not modify/hack their products. They faced the potential of having their phones (IPhone) shut off by their carrier. This atmosphere of fear seems to be pervasive across manufacturers to keep their customer “in line” at times. The “fear” of potential safety issues is one that has worked on me more than once. Naturally if customers can modify existing products on their own, they may not need to buy the next version of a manufacturer's product. [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 00:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hai folx -----=:) In light of a seemingly negative perception of what hackers do, and also as a demonstration of positive collective action I thought that I would share a bit about a primarily European hacker group named Telecomix that recently rallied to provide low tech communications such as fax numbers, dial-up modems, and even HAM radio coms for the Egyptian people during the internet blackout days of the anti-Mubarak protests. This was a video they made at the beginning of the uprising: "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz4ECbj3dkY| Telecomix Message to North Africa and the Middle East]". Later they were mentioned by the Electronic Frontier Foundation along with the French Data Network as organizations that provided technical workarounds and support during the black out. The EFF article can be found here: "[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak | Egypt's Internet Blackout Highlights Danger of Weak Links Usefulness of Quick Links"]. Telecomix is currently providing a variety of similar technologies for the people of Libya. They are about the datalove and keeping it free and flowing. (:=----- kthxbai [[User: deinous|deinous]]

Hai again! In class last night I had mentioned the two different approaches that Microsoft and Sony are taking toward hackers hacking their gaming consoles. In a recent Mashable article, "[http://mashable.com/2011/02/21/kinect-sdk/ |Xbox Kinect vs. Sony PS3: How 2 Companies Handle Hacking]", they described these approaches. Microsoft is encouraging hackers to innovate and push the limitations of their new motion sensoring peripheral, Kinect, by hosting hacking contests and the upcoming commercial release of a developing platform, SDK, for hacker to use. About a week after the public release of the Kinect last fall there was a huge buzz in the gaming community that the Kinect had been hacked to play World of Warcraft. Being an avid member of the WoW community I was very excited about this and searched to find out what the hack did. As it turned out the Institute for Creative Technology of USC had created a customizable user interface and had applied it to the game controls for WoW. The result and explanation of this inspiring hack can be seen in their YouTube video here: "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62wj8eJ0FHw | World of Warcraft with Microsoft Kinect using FAAST and OpenNI']. There is also already a commercially release development platform for creating homebrewed Xbox360 games, and again, there are many hosted contests for talented hackers. Conversely, companies like Sony do not encourage hacking their systems, and are currently suing George Holt for jailbreaking the PS3 for homebrew game design. This closed attitude raises the important question: if you purchased the product, why are you not allowed to do with it as you please? Recently, at least in the common practice of jailbreaking Apple's iPhones and iPads for open development, and unapproved software from Apple, it is not illegal to do so and will not result in lawsuits or terminations of your phone and data services. It does however void Apple warranties. I personally am in support of the "you buy it, you can do what you want with it" argument, and look forward to more companies adopting attitudes and policies much like Microsoft has with their releasing of commercial developing tools that promote the generative process of creating new hardware uses and homebrew game design. If these consoles and gadgets remain so closed I agree with Zittrain that there will become a stagnation with in creative technology. ---=:) kthxbai [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 20:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

== Links ==
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html/ Clay Shirky TED Talk]
* [http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2007/id20070201_774736.htm goldcorp story] (worth reading)
* [http://kirbybits.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/here-is-a-project-troll-data-analysis/ Troll! Data! Analysis!] - Courtney Stanton's study of responses to a blog post about women and rape culture in gaming, focusing on the content of the comments and comparing civil discussion to trolling. A quick read, interesting analysis. --[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* some links on Apple's new subscription model:
** [http://mashable.com/2011/02/15/apple-subscription-model/ Apple's New Subscription Model]: Christina Warren, Mashable
** [http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apple_subscription_model.php The New New Media: Apple's Subscription Model]: Richard MacManus, ReadWriteWeb
** [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380742,00.asp Top 4 Publisher Objections to Apple Subscriptions]: Peter Pachal, PCMag
** [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/apple-offers-subscriptions-for-all-ipad-publications/?partner=rss&emc=rss Apple Offers Subscriptions for Apps]: JEREMY W. PETERS and MIGUEL HELFT, NYTimes
* Ethan Zuckerman on [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/04/25/homophily-serendipity-xenophilia/ Homophily, serendipity, and xenophilia] -- an interesting response to the "silo" theory (aka homophily) we discussed in class. --[[User:RebekahHeacock|RebekahHeacock]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
* Here is a link from yesterday's New York Times, http://nyti.ms/fBtKpz more wikileaks this time referring to the Qaddafi family’s exploits [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 16:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
* Interesting talk tonight (24 Feb), open to the public from what I can tell. Video will be posted afterwards, if you can't make it:
** [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/online_news.html#abstract ONLINE NEWS: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber?] - 5-7pm, [http://whereis.mit.edu/?go=3 3-270] ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Assignment 4 Submissions

2013-01-17T21:57:53Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

Assignment 4 Details and Links

2013-01-17T21:57:53Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

Assignment 3 Submissions

2013-01-17T21:57:53Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

Assignment 2 Submissions

2013-01-17T21:57:48Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

<div class="editsection noprint editlink plainlinksneverexpand" align="right" style="float: right; margin: 5px; background:#eeeeff; color:#111111; border: 4px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px; text-align: left;">
<big>'''Assignments'''</big>

'''[[Assignment 1 Details and Reporting]]''' | [[Assignment 1 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 8''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_2:_Prospectus| Assignment 2]]''' | [[Assignment 2 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due February 22''

'''[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline| Assignment 3]]''' | [[Assignment 3 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due March 22''

'''[[Assignment 4 Details and Links]]''' | [[Assignment 4 Submissions|Submissions]]<br />
''Due April 12''

'''[[Final Project]]''' | [[Final Projects|Submissions]]<br />
''Due May 10''

</div>

===Distribution of Grades===
[[Image:Assignment2_distribution.png‎|400px]]

===Submission Instructions===
This assignment is due on February 22. Grading for this assignment is on a 5-point scale; late assignments will be docked 1 point for each day they are late (assignments submitted 4 days late or later will have a maximum grade of 1 point).

Please make sure the name of your file includes your name (example: Name_Assignment2.doc) to avoid overwriting someone else's assignment. ''The '''upload file''' link is to the left, under '''toolbox'''.'' Once you've uploaded your file, please link to it following the format below:

*Name:
*Prospectus title:
*Link to prospectus: (the file you uploaded)

If you have trouble finding the file you uploaded, check the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Special:ImageList list of uploaded files].

===Comments===
Everyone will receive an additional participation grade for this assignment. You should read through everyone's proposals after they are uploaded and add constructive comments below the proposal on which you're commenting. Comments should be submitted by March 6 so you have time to incorporate them, if applicable, into your project outline. ('''Remember to sign your comments!''')

===Submissions===

----

====Name: Gagan Panjhazari --[[User:Gpanjhazari|Gpanjhazari]] 07:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/GaganPanjhazari-Assignment2.txt
*Comment: You might want to check the article I posted on the Feb 22 assignment page that appeared in the New York Times. Might be helpful on your first topic. <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Gagan, I find both of your topic choices interesting. I think the second one, regarding the ability to hold website creators responsible for their content, especially when said content could be considered treasonous, would be the best topic of the two. It is such an important question, the answer to the question will frame our national security for the future. With either topic, I look forward to reading your findings. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
*Comment: Frontline, the PBS program, had an episode about the April 6 Movement in Egypt, including how it used the interent and mobile devices for organization and how it was forced to adapt when access was cut. There isn't a whole lot of detail here, but it might be a useful place to start. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/revolution-in-cairo/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
*''Comment:'' I like the second topic. It would be interesting to see if the treason charges are somehow being used to:
# silence Julian Assange
# scare others from doing the same thing
#*One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]
**Hai!...I love your idea of covering the censorship and even internet blackouts at times in Egypt and Libya along with the role that social networking and tweeps had in organizing the recent protests, and ousting of Mubarak. This is a fascinating narrative to be sure. Here are a few links about a European internet activist group that has worked to provide low tech communication aid to the protesters. I hope they might be of use to you in your research. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/egypts-internet-blackout-highlights-danger-weak|Egypt's Internet Blackouts Highlights Danger of Weak Links, Usefulness of Quick Links], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Egypt/Main_Page | werebuild.eu the Egyptian project page], [http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Libya/Main_Page | werebuild.eu, the Libyan project page], and [http://telecomix.org/ | telecomix.org] [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ | Global Voices]has done an outstanding job of covering these events as well. Best of luck![[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I agree with Deinous. Your topic is very time-appropriate and I cannot hide my excitement to read final results of the research! I believe it should be closely examined as an epitome of the Internet censorship by all of us who are taking this class. From my perspective, it seems that Egypt's Internet kill switch decision rather ignited people's movement toward democracy and protests. By the way, your prospectus includes primarily theoretical approaches to the topic. I would love to know which resources you are going to use in the course of the research. Depending on types of media, your research conclusions, I believe, can be various. Below is the article of the Economist that might be useful in your project. Good Luck! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**[[http://www.economist.com/node/18112043 The Economist: Reaching for the kill switch]]
**Comment: Hi Gagan, both your topics are interesting. According to the description of the Final Project it should be built around one of the theoretical conceptions that we study during the course.So if you think about the conceptions that may apply to your topics, it will help you to chose one of two topics proposed by you and, perhaps, to generate your questions and hypothesis around the theoretical conception as the Final Project demand. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Gagan, great subjects! You should stick with the subject that interests you most. I suppose its the first one that you wrote about, the role of social media and networking in the revolutions. This is definitely a broad subject, but that doesn't mean you should throw it out, it means you should narrow it to a point that is achievable. A suggestion would be to pick one of the countries, and one of the social networks to drill deeper into. (i.e. the role that Facebook users played in the Egyptian revolution.) Then you need to think about what you will investigate. This project is supposed to be empirical, so you should find some way of observing or surveying the users or the events. This might be in the form of friending as many of the users who were involved in a particular event on Facebook. This should be a great project for you! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Gagan,I think the same - great topics. I believe both of them are very current and it will be interesting to read your final project. It is very hard to comment your prospectus because it is apparent that you did a deep research and you are clear in what you want to research in final paper. It seems to me that first project seems to be more empirical than second one. Although it would be maybe more or less easier to find 'clear' answers for questions in second project. I do not know. When regards the topics, both of them are very current and you identified the questions very clearly. Good luck with your project...[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 10:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think thats remarkable. I do think your topic is a bit broad, as is mine, must a great start! This link might help as well-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html I wonder what role did social networks play in Egypts revolution. I know the Egyptian consulate in New York cut off web access, but you can still inquire via phone. Will they take this same route in the future?--[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: This is a very serious and evolving topic that should be very fun and interesting to work on. It is very important to study the internet's effect on these countries because it could quite possibly happen to other countries. Just like the revolutionary furry spread from Egypt to Libya, it could easily spread to other countries either for the better of for the worse.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --'''[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Hi Saam, I think your topic of synthetic or virtual worlds. I had a suggestion that you take a look at BitCoin (http://www.bitcoin.org/), this is an emerging technology that only started up a short time ago. It's a fascinating technology that deals with a new form of money (yes it can be exchanged for real money and is currently trading 1 for 1 with the US dollar). Some interesting things about it: uses public/private encryption keys, it's completely anonymous, it has great potential to circumvent certain banking regulation systems, it can be used to make real purchases, because of it's anonymity and cannot be tracked creates a security of privacy for the purchaser and seller. This also means could could be exploited by people not wanting transactions to be recorded. This technology really opens a virtual door of monetary exchange across the globe where any currency can be exchanged for BitCoins and then exchanged again into a different currency. This is just a top end look at it. It's already in use and some places accept this currency including some non-profit agencies for donation purposes. It also opens an easy way to laundry dirty money. Regards Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi , Saam. The topic is very interesting, but, I’m not sure that questions you want to answer will help you to develop the topic deeply and systemically: the questions are not in a strong correlation with your topic, I think they will not disclose the topic in full and from the main sides of it. You also use such phrase as “virtual property”, what do you mean by this? Is it the same as intellectual property? If yes, I think, it’s better to use the term “intellectual property”. You also pose such question as “How harmful is it for people to sell virtual items for real world monies, and to what extent is it harmful?” So you’ve already decided that it’s harmful, may be, it’s worth to give some arguments in your work why you decided it’s harmful. If you consider “the Synthetic World Communities” as the theoretical concept you want to use in the Final Project, you can try to determine the main features of this concept, then divide your hypothesis into three sphere ( society, economic and copyright law) and pose the main, in your opinion, questions in each of the spheres, regarding the theoretical basis you chose. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Saam, you've picked a fascinating topic. You've identified a rich field and topics; the challenge will actually be in narrowing it down to something observable, rather than reporting on what has already been written and explored. Pick one of the topics like virtual property trades and one of the sites like EVE Online and think through how you can observe what is happening in that cross-section. I look forward to reading this project! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Saam...Great topic. I agree with Smithbc comments. I am not sure whether we should study smething mere via reporting the book and blog. As I said, I am not sure and at this time you should have already had a feedback so you probably know better. Good luck with the project and looking forward for reading final version. [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
----

====Name: Kimberly Nevas --'''[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. Your topic is one of the essential questions I myself also want to closely observe and look for answers. Especially, considering the global impacts of Wikileaks, the prosecution of Assange is merely not confined to the jobs of the US Justice Department. Many governments are quite eager to punish him for revealing sensitive political/diplomatic issues, which might have significantly deterred their national agenda. Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment of the US and equivalent provisions existing in each country that guarantee freedom of speech are standing in the way of this very prosecution. So the question always comes down to this: are we going to sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater cause - usually national security? Are there certain limitations that media have to comply with in publishing their articles? I would love to see how this 21th version of the Zenger Trial will turn out. Good luck! Best, [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: It might also be interesting to see if any other sites purporting to disclose sensitive information whether government or corporate have become more aggressive considering all the confusion about what to do with Julian Assange. Does his legal situation make these sites feel more confident regarding avoiding prosecution? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Your statement, "In this respect, Assange cannot be considered any more liable than the New York Times." is a bold one, which some might strongly disagree with, given Assange's postings and his refusal to censor, along with his use or threatened use of yet unreleased information as leverage to keep himself free. I look foward to reading your arguments regarding Assange, freedom of speech and the case law which supports your position. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Kimberly. The problem you decided to consider in the Prospectus is really important and actual. But I think that the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, that you pose describing the Problem is wider than the Research question. Perhaps, it’s worth to add the question “whether the Justice Department can prosecute Assange without damaging the U.S. free press as we know it”, to your Research question as the main one. And your present research question: Are the distribution methods adopted by Wikileaks for the dissemination of thousands of pages of classified U.S. documents structured so as to arm Julian Assange and his associates with a strong defense to prosecution under U.S. law?” will help you to answer your main question. Your present research question can be also considered as a research frame, so that you can explore the distribution methods of Wikileaks to answer if they really make the obstacles for the Justice Deparment to prosecute Assange and if yes to what extend; are the distribution methods of Wikileaks the main obstacles which do not permit the Justice Department to prosecute Assange or there are the other obstacles (for ex., with respect to the features of free press)? [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March, 2011.
**Comment: Kimberly, you have the beginnings of a good project here. I am interested in what you choose to use as your methodology and what you will choose to "observe" as part of this case study. One suggestion in particular is to look at the particular statements made by the U.S. papers in regards to why they believe their approach to printing the leaks are legal and any justifications they made in regard to accepting Assange's information. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Kimberly, that is an explosive topic! I bet you'll have lots of material! The qusetion is where did he commit the crimes if any. If in Australia, can they prosecute him? Or because they are U.S. cables, does the U.S.A. have jurisdiction? And who has the right to tell him he can or cannot post and release? The U.S.A. has to clearly stae how he broke the law. As far as I know, treason can only be a crime if commited by a citizen. Good work! --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yes, very timely and interesting topic. One thing you might look up for precedence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers Pentagon Papers] [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Jamil Buie====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Jamil, For me this is a an extremely important issue, I'm glad to see you're looking at it. I have a few pointers that may help uncover some things that are currently being looked at and something that was done in the UK back in 2008. Do a search for Phorm, BT implemented it in secrecy and it caused a big uproar. Also, it appears that ComCast is looking to implement it here in the US. It deals with deep level packet inspection. Not sure how tech savvy you are, but basically it comes down to an ISP looking at each packet users are sending out over their home connection. It is suppose to be done anonymously, however, it's invasive to the nth degree. Another technology that you might want to look at is the Evercookie. This can be used by websites that a user goes to, this then gathers information about a great number of browsing files that are on a system to ID the system. In the instance that a user cleans up his/her cookies, EverCookie will still be able to quickly identify you and place certain cookies back on your computer being able to keep tabs on the user. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, Jamil. In your Prospectus, you write the following: “While most do understand that they are interacting with a third-party be it a site, search engine, or ISP they remain ignorant to how the data they’re providing is being farmed out or utilized in a commercial vein”. I can agree with you only partly: of course, we could not exclude the situations, when the data we provided are an object of unfair use, but it should be also mentioned that “the main players” of the Internet services do not ignore users, thus they stay uninformed about the way their data are used. For ex., Yahoo Privacy Policy http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html or Google Privacy http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ In the question: What are the common guidelines and site best practices? you use such phrase as “site best practices”, that is very subjective category, as also the question: “Are consumers truly aware?”. Perhaps, it’s better to avoid such categories in your science research. [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Jamil, we have similar interests and research topics. You are looking at the broad trail of information left by a typical internet user and the ways that trail is used. I am going narrower, specifically into the information gathered by location-based services to examine the associated privacy issues and assess the average consumer's perceptions of risks. If you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Very intrigued by your topic (and somewhat regretting not pursuing it myself!). I used to work as a targeting specialist at Yahoo!, and was floored by the amount of user data we had access to. Thought I'd share an extremely thorough [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395073512989404.html study] the WSJ put together not long ago, which summarizes the policies and efficacy of the major players in this space. Looking forward to reading your report on this very controversial and fascinating topic. - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Another very ineresting topic. I believe, most consumers are not aware. I was surprised when I blocked cookies and then wanted to log in to facebook. Following message occured: 'Cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please adjust this in your security preferences before continuing.'. Seems like they are not interested in someone using their service without getting access to information about me so they can get paid:)I am still not aware of all information they can easily get about me. Good luck with project.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Uduak Patricia Okon====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf
**Comment: Hi Uduak, Your prospectus is very interesting. I look forward to seeing how your project comes together. But I have some comments that I would like to share, I hope my feedback is helpful.
**Re:
***In general, people are entitled to share facts if they don’t breach confidentiality or depict a real situation. This would depend on how citizen bloggers support their argument about their political commentary, whether it’s positive or negative. You need to remember that politicians are public figures, so the first amendment applies differently to them. Therefore the confidential circumstances that apply to the general population do not apply to politicians since they are not entitled to the same level of privacy. And citizen bloggers don’t have to adhere to the same circumstances as journalists to the best of my knowledge (I major in journalism and work in media in NYC) (i.e. it’s considered unethical for journalists to be bias if they’re not commentary writers. Also most journalists are not allowed to put political figure signs on their lawn, bumper sticker on their car, etc they need to push their feelings aside to accurately report the truth). I think the bigger issue is whether or not non-citizen bloggers can face defamatory lawsuits if there is proof they intentionally acted with malice? Or will future non-citizens bloggers have to abide by the same guidelines as employed journalists in the blogosphere working for CNN?
***Corporate law is an entirely different world. Because many corporations lie to promote their brand among many other issues on the internet, which is unethical to their consumers.
***I don’t think you should look into news websites like CNN, NY Times, etc because those are explicitly run by paid journalists (whom must adhere to strict guidelines about what they report) and comments are very restricted so the same type of freedom doesn’t apply to citizen journalists because official journalists also have code of ethics and have much more at stake.
***It's important to note that some citizen bloggers sell advertising on their blogs which might impede with how they portray a public figure on the net because they're getting paid. Formally employed journalists can't bias their stories based on relationships with advertisers because the editorial and advertising departments are seperate at news organizations.
***You, first need to narrow your focus because there is a huge difference between local mayors and congressional candidates, and citizen and non-citizen bloggers. (i.e. I think it would be interesting if you looked at how political figures use blogging as a form of position taking in Congress and compare cases of democratic and republican candidates on an issue like healthcare reform, education, etc. And the implications blogging has on Senators or Representatives relationships with their constituents).
**Comment: Uduak, very interesting subject. As you shape these ideas into a final project, one aspect to consider focusing on is to differentiate between a) the official "legal findings" of what bloggers can/cannot do vs. b) the unoffical "codes of conduct" being developed in the world of blogging. I think the unofficial codes would reflect the complex realities of the different types of bloggers, rather than the more simplistic legal concept of a blogger. One case to look at is the judge that was recently found to have been blogging anonymously [she thought :) ] about the case on which she herself was the sitting judge. I'll look for the URL to send you. I look forward to reading your project. [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc
**Comment: Hi Yaerin, I think this is a great topic. Being a part of F/OSS environment has pushed forward a number of wonderful software innovations. Scratch is an example of MIT's commitment to OCW. Scratch, though at first glance might appear comical, is actually a great tool to teach people the concepts of early stages of computer programming. I'm sure there are tons of other open source software that would interest you. I would suggest, if you have a spare computer or can run a virtual environment, downloading and running a Linux distribution like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Then you can take a look at the rich repository of software that is completely free to install and use. Some of the software is not F/OSS, such as Adobe Reader, but the disclaimers of Left-Copied software is always clear. Anything that came from MIT would also give credit to that source even if it's been morphed. Best regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, you've nicely narrowed down your topic to MIT OCW and assessing progress on the 3 goals. In the context of this course, it would really be interesting to narrow down even further to the third goal: the level of interaction of OCW users with the institutions that provide it. What are they and the users missing out on? We've already seen examples of digital communities developing and producing some amazing things and perhaps MIT is or should be seeking to turn OCW from content publishing into an active community. I look forward to reading about this in your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yaerin. I think your topic is brilliantly targeted and focused on one of the distinct manifestations of peer collaboration - that is an open online course. I, myself, have greatly benefited from MIT OCW and Yale Open Course and thus look forward to see, specifically, the reasons why the participation rate of users is lingering at such low figures. Would it be too much to expect OCW to be an open education forum with lively discussions? In my opinion, the architectures of OCW and Yale Open Course are expressly posing limitations on interaction between users as there is no such place to share opinions. I am very much excited to read your final project! Best, --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 10:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: William Bauser --[[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wnb_assignment2.pdf
**Comment: This is an interesting topic -- you have a lot of avenues to explore! Among the sites you list, some are clearly partisan while others seem more altruistic. I would be interested to learn the contrast of methods used by each type. For example, what are the membership requirements? Does the site encourage a particular philosophy? Does a certain amount of selective cocooning take place? On the other side, how can an Internet based civic community be both neutral and vital? If it is only fact based then it won't be interesting. How does is promote community discussions without advocating a position? I'm sure you'll have to narrow the focus of your chosen topic and I thought this might be an interesting distinction you could use. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi William: Sounds like a very interesting subject. I have two comments. First, it is clear you are looking at assessing how effective internet tools are in increasing engagement in the political process, but your last statement doesn't seem to fit. It seems like you'd also like to look at how effective they are in increasing the transparency of the political process as well and you'd have to clarify how those fit together. (IMO, engagement =/= transparency.) Second, I'd be interested in hearing more about your methodology, since most of the sites you mention would likely not share their data openly (perhaps I am wrong.) All the best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this sounds interesting, particularly as scholars are emerging to study the implications of the internet, web 2.0 and social networking on politics. I think there's going to be a lot of research into how these tools (and many of the sites you mentioned, particularly sites like change.org or moveon.org) are contributing to the distribution of social capital/political capital among the population. I think your topic is timely, and interesting. My guess is that you will need to hone in on a few specific sites and some specific aspects of them in order to make solid comparisons and broad analysis. Best of luck! [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]] 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Greetings Brian! I found your research idea very creative and the methodology you are planning to utilize seems realistically achievable, although some instruments used by government and private marketing agencies are very difficult to trace and require special software and equipment. I have a topic idea that may coincide with a notion of privacy you are investigating, so I may cite your work in my project. What I found to be inconsistent is that your methods seem to be distant on the instrumental level from your hypothetical statements, that is, it is undetermined how your method will help to prove or reject either of your hypotheses. In fact, even doctorate dissertations attempting to either reject or accept only one hypothesis. It is in quantitative sciences we test several hypothesis in order to corroborate the validity of the expression or formula, etc., but not in the research as far as academic papers suggest. In terms of your definition of location, it is unclear whether your are talking about the IP address based location or mobile device based location, if it is about mobile device only (most hosts like schools and bosses may hunt for both mobile and the laptop IP to trace their employee or a student) then you need to state so in your research and in the proposal as well. I know one thing for sure that with arrival of the wireless technology it became much more harder for Federal agents to trace hackers: it is technologically more convenient to retain privacy through the public wireless router. I think you will benefit from setting up a singular and more definite hypothetic statement that will encapsulate the entire topic. In addition, you would make the research more productive and to the point if you will add the limitations to your research so that your process will have its bottom line. Check out this research, it could be helpful or at least you can retrieve some more sources from in-context citations: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/Journals/Expertise-JASIS.htm Good Luck! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you, Vladimir - these are really helpful comments. I might ping you back for more details as I go through them each. Best, Brian'' [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: Brian, the location of a caller is also one of the key pieces of information that is used by public safety officials when responding to emergencies. There is a long history of regulation related to the use of location information in the Enhanced 9-1-1 system. I know the location services that you are talking about in your paper are based upon the GPS capabilities in mobile devices, but you may benefit from understanding the history of location as you look at some of the politics surrounding these new services. There has been some recent political maneuvering related to the location information provided by telecommunications carriers for the purpose of Enhanced 9-1-1 since many have determined, as you say in your prospectus, that location information is a marketable commodity.

Here is a short explanation of how location is determined in Enhanced 9-1-1. If you were to need to dial 9-1-1 in an emergency, when your call is answered at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) a software application retrieves information about your location from the Automatic Location Information (ALI) database. The ALI database – there are actually over 3,000 ALI databases in the US, but from a local jurisdiction only one is important - that is/are maintained on behalf of the government by various on-contract third parties. How information about your location gets populated in that database depends upon the device originating your call. For a traditional wired phone, the phone company is responsible to update your location when your phone is installed.

When you are calling from a mobile phone, there are actually two ways that your location is determined. One is GPS, but many mobile devices today still either don’t have GPS chips or the users don’t turn the GPS on for reasons that range from prolonging battery life to a belief that they are protecting their privacy (something that you may next see is an illusion). One way wireless location is determined is by the triangulation of two or more cell towers. A mobile phone is almost always in communication with two or more towers and an estimate can be made of your location by measuring distance as a function of signal strength. The other way is to integrate the GPS chip. For Enhanced 9-1-1, this actually turns out not to be as straight forward as one might think. This is because the GPS information is carried in the data channel of a phone. For many phones it isn’t possible to have both a concurrent voice call and a data transmission. This means that in order to retrieve the GPS data, the PSAP needs to disconnect the caller. Not the best situation in an emergency. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.html The FCC’s Wireless 911 Rules] currently specify that the phone carrier is required to be able to locate you within, “50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.”

There is also a separate system for determining the location of a caller who is using a VoIP device (as in Skype) and another process for determining the location of a caller from within an enterprise organizations (such as a PBX extension).

Hope you find this of use. Let me know if I may clear up and points or answer any additional questions. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Yu Ri Jeong -- [[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.</span>'''
*'''Link to Prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc
**Comment: This is a really interesting topic! I hadn't known that South Korea had so strongly resisted the dominance of Wikipedia. I am curious, even if you do not include these questions in your paper, to hear what you think is unique about South Korea that it managed to create its own version of Wikipedia. Was it simply a question of timing, or is there something about South Korean Internet culture that allowed it to rally around its own creation. I also wonder what this means for Wikipedia. As a result of the lack of participation by South Korean Internet users, does Wikipedia suffer from a gap in information about South Korean culture, politics or society? I think the paper you have laid out in your prospectus is very thorough and complete, but I would love to hear your thoughts on these questions separately as you continue your research! [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Dear Mcforelle, thank you for your kind words on my prospectus. I believe that the user-friendly manner of NKIN is encouraging Koreans to prefer it over Wikipedia. To elaborate, NKIN offers such an environment that participants can just write down their ideas without having to give much thought about the impacts of their posts. It is not that they have no responsibility in writing down articles; but they want to give information or advice as they do to their friends and family. The system of Wikipedia requires some duties such as learning of new Wiki codes. I believe that these factors are alienating Koreans from using Wiki. Furthermore, the under-activated usage rate of Korean Wiki is discouraging people to use it. --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Yuri! I think your research would reveal some very interesting points about the difference between the Korean Naver website and Wikipedia. If I may suggest, it would be interesting to analyze the difference in user demographic between the two websites. This would assist your analysis for Question #3. Also, since Naver seems to be a for-profit organization, it would be interesting to analyze how profitable NKin has been and contrast it to the non-profit model of Wikipedia. [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yaerin, thank you for your kind comments. Your suggestions include very important points which I might have ignored had it been not you! Truly, the demographic analysis of two websites and the comparison of them in terms of for-profit and non-profit will reveal some of the interesting characteristics of these open knowledge forums. Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Yu Ri: This is a solid proposal for the project. I like how you've used the course themes as your areas of investigation and how you've narrowed down to two communities that you will compare, and even further to a set of articles with common subjects across the two communities. The only area of concern might be that your subject areas are pretty large in and of themselves (architectural elements, social norms & governance, membership, limits on expression, and national law.) If you can do all of those, then that's great, but you might think of narrowing to a smaller set. Otherwise, this proposal seems strong. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Smith. Thank you for spending your time in reading my prospectus. I absolutely agree with your concern. I wish to nail down the topic further, but am still not certain which theme to focus on as all the aspects matter most. I will keep you informed if I narrow down to the very specific topic! Thank you! --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Building a Sustainable News Org</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, It's good to see you're approaching this hot topic. I think most Americans are rather clueless about the current demise of the media or at least they are clueless as to why the media has been in a state of disintegration over the past 30 years. The newspaper companies came to late to the Internet forum and due to their lack of response they lost the "first-to-line" efforts in advertising & classified revenues. Aggregators and bloggers have only worsened the situation for major media, not to mention giants like Google and Craigslist drawing away advertising dollars. Still, a more important aspect is that experienced journalists need to continue to be supported in doing investigative reporting. Looking at detail as to how the different models of moving forward and the benefits might be speculative at this point, but we have seen some success stories in new ways to successfully report on current events. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello La Kiesha! This is a very interesting and important topic for the future well being of journalism. According to your prospectus, it seems that you are interested in the profit aspect of the emergence of new internet-based journalism. If this is the case, it would be helpful if you can offer comparison in income for the aforementioned journalist. In other words, how much did these journalist as an employee of a traditional publisher and how much are they making now with their innovative website? Also, it would be interesting to know who is willing to patron these professional journalists. I think the lecture slides from March 1 would be very helpful as well. Good luck![[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi La Keisha, Bravo for taking on this topic. I like the fact that you are exploring success stories in online journalism. While journalism is undergoing fundamental changes, I think this is not just a doomsday scenario that dictates journalism will disappear. The newspaper existed for so long because, I believe, there is strong consumer demand for quality information. Just because the business model for supplying news is undergoing transformation doesn't mean that that demand is gone. My hypothesis is what we discussed in our last class: that the newspaper is being disaggregated and all the components will find their places as the changes shake out. There will be a place for classified ads, opinion articles, local fluff pieces, national news, international news, and yes, even, high-quality investigative reporting! It's just that they won't all be delivered by the same company, in the same vehicle, nor with the same business model anymore. As a side note for a case study check out the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but their story might be interesting to you in that they closed down their print publication and went entirely online with a shrunken staff. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 08:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Enjoyed reading your prospectus! Just read an article in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/05/huffington-post-aol The Guardian] that seems to resonate very well with your proposed topic. It highlights the business model Huffington Post created whereby a good portion of their content is via free contributions, and the ensuing backlash amongst some writers circles who feel they are under/uncompensated. Also, I noticed you touch on the concept of 'content farming,' and thought I'd reiterate an example I brought up in class, [http://www.demandmedia.com/ Demand Media]. It is the poster child for content farming in the media industry, so might be worth a glance. Good luck and hope this is helpful! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I really enjoy the topic of your proposal. I think it's a timely and meaningful investigation. I think in comparing what makes these online media outlets successful, it is important to create a measure of which are and which are not successful. There are Nielsen ratings for websites, but I don't recall where to find them... and I believe Alexa does a web index ranking as well. It is probably worthwhile to be sure that the parallels you're drawing are across the most successful models. Many blogs that are popular are not lucrative business models, and as you seem poised to compare your results with the decline in financially-stable, traditional media, this will be an important distinction. It seems like a great jumping off point! Good luck! [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]] 16:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jillian York [[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc
**Comment: Hi Jillian. I found your approach to the project very interesting: based on your prospectus, it seems that you are studying an online society as a mirror to look into the real world. Your idea of examining the ways that homosexuality is expressed on the Internet would offer a glimpse to the country's customs and legal regulations is truly brilliant. I will look forward to seeing what kind of role the Internet is playing in Lebanon society for freedom of speech - especially for that of lesbians. Best, Yu Ri --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hey Jillian, I think this is such a great paper topic. I love how secretive communities can still operate out in the public through using the internet. The value of anonymity in this case seems like it must be very high, especially if there are governmental pressures keeping women from coming out. I had no idea that "Lesbanon" existed but it really does make perfect sense. Maybe if there are other communites out there like this, you could make a broader statement on the nature of coming out on the internet despite oppressive governments and societal norms. Otherwise, I think your question is quite reigned in and manageable in scope. I look forward to reading this paper when you're finished. [[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Jillian, this is a clever topic. I think in America, we often take for granted what the Civil Rights Movement did for communities beyond racial and sexual orientation lines--it really impacted our cultural norm mindset. The internet is not only release but '''power''' for those in disadvantaged or secretive communities the world over--especially when you are looking at two groups under different governments: the Lebanese and the diaspora. I am curious to read more. [[User:Myra|Myra]] 19:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

**Comment: I am sorry if I am posting belated remarks but it seems that your topic, along with many other topics related to this type of mental state, overlooks the origins of the same sex attraction for males, that is, pederasty, which by nature can affect the mind set of the near situated females. It is widely argued in the world, may be not in the entire U.S., that the same sex attraction among men is not a genetic phenomenon, but rather it is the bodily stigma imposed either during the childhood or during the adultery. In the majority of cases, I refer to the child molestation cases with a few exceptions, neither adult nor a child is able to recall the first same sex sexual experience, which decisively suggests on the unconscious intercourse under the influence of a sedative and/or somnolent substance. In the scholarly papers similar to this, you may find the old and new findings that can explain both the political and biological causes of mental and physical attraction in the same sex: http://www.ched.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=39750&pid=0 It is no doubt that the nature has produced hermaphrodites, but their amount is nothing in comparison to what America or Lebanon has. Hence, it is not the nature that produces majority of them. Overall, you have very intelligent approach to tackle the puzzle of how homosexuals are created in a society with many religious denominations like Lebanon and the U.S.. As far as I know, it is a scientific fact that in order to have stigma a body should have most of its sensitive erogenous zones irritated. The next piece of the puzzle: by coincidence, the amount of child molestation cases among Jehova Witnesses exceeds the amount of all sexual scandals among Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox religions. So, here is the Bingo - the amount of religious sects which are striving to get your trust and intimacy and visit you at home and may be have a "drink" or "dinner" with you is equally proportional to the amount of homosexuals in the society. So, the taboo is coming from the kind of common sense I mentioned above; unfortunately or may be fortunately for many Jews in Lebanon, not everyone is able to crunch this trust game puzzle in reality right away. May be your project will help to make this devastating syndrome that originates from the terrible crime disappear from any society. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
----

====Name: Caroline McLoughlin [[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080"> Privacy and Society</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment-2.pdf
**Comments: Caroline, I, too, was interested in writing a paper more inclined to policy arguments and Rebekah counseled me against it. I got the impression we are supposed to be more observant of communities and how they interact and work. If this is true, you might lean your paper more towards observing whether privacy policies are adequately disclosed on sites in the US and how they are different on Canadian sites. Is this difference due to the contrasting privacy legal frameworks in the two countries? Do participants react differently?This might also help narrow your topic which seems like alot of material to cover. All this being said, I find your topic very interesting and think it might be great to present it in something like a PowerPoint format. Would be the great beginnings of a law review article if you are a lawyer.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Caroline, we are interested in the same privacy subjects. Similar to Sjennings feedback, I tried to make mine more about observing a community, specifically consumers using location-based services, and less about policy. If you've got the understanding already to get into issues and policy, though, then it sounds like a great project. As I mentioned to Jamil Buie above, if you are interested, I'd be willing to trade notes and help each other shape up the final project. Since we are doing similar topics, I would really appreciate your comments on my prospectus as well. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 05:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: I like that you've identified another means of content organization for study. I feel like tagging is going to be a rich topic, not only because of the ways people use it, but because of how it defines or redefines website architectures. I don't really know much about tags beyond their most obvious uses (and frankly, on in Twitter), so I am curious to see what kind of social rules you discover in your research. The only thing I might suggest is that, given the richness of your topic, that you not worry about studying superusers too deeply. I feel like a thorough study of tagging on the three main sites you've identified, which are pretty major sites, in addition to the other examples you'll be incorporating, will be more than enough data and analysis for a great paper. Unless perhaps I'm not understanding the particular lens through which you'll be approaching the superuser question? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a really fascinating and relatively untouched subject; I'm curious to learn the myriad ways tagging is used, both for public sharing and for semi-private sharing (e.g., cleverly devised tags that only a particular group is aware of) -- but I agree with the above commenter in that I'm not sure how the question of superusers fits in here; I think you might be better off narrowing the subject just to the question of tagging.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Vladimir, thank you for your resources. I have been reading your prospectus and found your approach as interesting as ambitious. To investigate wether the U.S. Government maintains Constitutional transparency and accountability for the tax money expenditures using e-government resources, that is a very well focused research and I can tell you are passionate about the topic, which makes the reading even more interesting. However, when you talk about conspiracy relating it with the internet resources, I have to disagree. I think power and conspiracy are long-time friends, governments have faced every kind of suspicions since they exist, but the importance of digital resources when it comes to spreading these suspicions cannot be denied, and that is why I think your research will face very interesting issues to deal with, as investigating the origin of "conspiracies" from a social point of view. Do you think the Internet is a cause or a consequence? I think about WikiLeaks, for example. The Internet had nothing to do with the origin of the cables, but made them become a "popular" topic, blurring the "secret" component of International Politics. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? We are talking about serious crimes becoming nearly gossip (we could talk further about a Spanish journalist murdered in Iraq and how Spanish and American Governments made a deal to make it look like an accident: that's on WikiLeaks). But now it looks like nothing happened. Amazon was selling the cables for Kindle, Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden in a week and I highly doubt any of the "accused" by, or thanks to, WikiLeaks, is to face trial. When you say that I am adressing a brave category of people ready to risk their lives for the "right cause", that is exactly the interesting thing about this. Why would someone get into trouble for nothing? However, it calls my attention that you take for granted that their cause is the right one. I see in your statement that you look pretty convinced about conspiracies when it comes to very sensitive and historic topics. You assume the defense of one group, don't you doubt that the cause may not always be the right one? I find your statement so determined that it becomes intriguing to me (it is really hard to me to be sure about something), I will be following your work with interest to get a better understanding of your point of view. In the meantime, I hope to receive more suggestions or resources you may find interesting to check out about this topic. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I see a potential flaw in your methodology, and find it potentially invasive of a web surfer's privacy. Collecting data by sniffing packets is rather dubious for your uses and can be construed as an abuse of networking tools. Trying to parse the IP addresses into geographical locations through a Whois database may be difficult to and inaccurate if users are using proxy based anonymizers such as Tor or i2p. It is for this reason, among others, that many people chose to use anonymizers when they surf. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Answer: There is no flaw, it is rather your misunderstanding of the software functionality: 1) collecting data of the visiting traffic by IP from a domain is not a crime and often the consent is given by the owner of a domain; 2) WhoIs database traces the domain's information from the server such as registration expiration date and the contact information of the domain's owner. In addition, there is a way to detect the Tor user and toss those IP out from the sample. In my survey, I will target users with average knowledge who do not use anonymous proxy services or encrypted networking channels.
***Vlaidmir: Thank you all for the creative comments addressed toward my prospectus, although the assignment says to add constructive suggestions which can help an author to improve his project. I think it is little bit unfair to help others reconstruct their idea and receive nothing in return. I guess that is all I can get from the general public. If however, someone in this course really knows about the internet traffic analysis, you are welcome to suggest substantial changes. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Vladimir, I apologize if I said anything to upset or discouraged you in any way. I meant my comment to be constructive in raising an ethical question to your research methodology in regards to the privacy of web surfers. U can certainly observe and aggregate traffic through packet sniffing network tools, but I would not be so trusting in precise geographical locations of the IP addresses for the reasons that I mentioned. However, with a large enough sample you could perhaps get a general feel for regional traffic. [http://www.ethereal.com | Ethereal]is a popular easy to use modern analysis tool with good documentation, and may serve your purposes. Again, I meant no disrespect and look forward to your project evolving.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Fringe Forums for the Under-represented</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc
**Comments: Wow! This is a great prospectus, I feel like these kinds of sites are the perfect places to be asking these questions. So many of the conversations we've had in class have centered around how to best facilitate legal social interactions. I'm excited to read your analysis of how semi-legal and illegal topics are handled by users, administrators and legal bodies on these forums. I'd be curious to see if legal action had ever been taken against the users of these sites, or whether the information posted on them had ever been used in legal action against someone else, like as evidence or tips on possible illegal goings-on? Are there any specific government agencies that track activity on these kinds of sites? Are any extra precautions taken to protect the anonymity of contributors? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comments: Hi Corey this is a interesting topic, the existence of sites like Erowid and “the chemical underground” highlight how (especially the US) government are losing the battle to control drug information. A “non-event” that may be of interest to you is the DEA making Microgram public in 2003. Microgram was a law enforcement restricted newsletter aimed at forensic chemists and its release made very little impact on the “chemical underground” due to the wealth of information on illicit drugs that was already available.
Here’s a link to an article that might be useful/interesting http://www.michaelerard.com/fulltext/2006/08/open_secrets_how_the_governmen.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title:<span style="color:#FF0080"> The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: This is a great example of "code is law." You have a very powerful tool (the bittorrent protocol) which can be used for both good an illicit purposes. Your investigation of the different interests for and against its deployment should provide an excellent case study. Does a company or government have more of a right than an individual to control the protocols in use? Are those opposed to the protocol trying to protect the greater good of the Internet or their own financial interests? [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Rick, I also like this topic. One thing you could really expand upon is the use of P2P (point to point) connections has also drivin forward such technologies as Skype. This type of technology was also never intended to be used for illicit purposes, but then again the Internet was never designed to be used in many of the ways it is used today. VoIP actually breaks the TCP/IP model where packets were never intended to be treated in such a timely fashion. Another item is that it was used by WikiLeaks to keep Assange a bit more safe, which could be interpreted both good and bad. It's also amazing that the record industry had enough lobby power to take down some of the most famous P2P services. There's also the aspect that businesses deal with a very real threat of employees using bittorrent technologies. The executive that installs a P2P client and accidentally shares out his entire drive has been a very real issue for companies to combat. Further, then end use that also does something simular can share very personal information such as passport and bank account details with the world. Hope my comments have given you some help in this area of interest. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Mary Van Gils====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc
**Comment: Wanted to make you aware as you investigate the external restriciton on freedom of expression regarding the Yelp site that there are also types of businesses which are regulated by state law as to how they may respond to reviews/complaints on sites like Yelp. If you look at my prospectus, you will note insurance companies are one of those types of businesses.[[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)]]
**Comment: Hi Mary - This is a fascinating subject - the tension between freedom to express opinions and libel as well as the possible manipulations. Your decision to use Yelp forums as a focal point is also a good idea. What is not clear to me what exactly you will be observing about the forums. It would be great to not only observe instances of the tension points, but also to find instances where free expression has been limited by external sources (not sure if you'll be able to get access to this if it's happened.) I really look forward to reading your project. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 06:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think Yelp makes a really interesting case study for freedom of expression, but, as mentioned above, Yelp doesn't exactly seem ripe for external limiting of free expression (in the forums at least; reviews are a separate issue), rather, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of limiting speech on the site is in the interest of the TOS. Nevertheless, I think there's a fascinating question here, and plenty of existing evidence, particularly to the question of reviews/slander.[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan, your subject area appears well-defined and methodology seems systematic. In addition to surveying the companies' online activities, I would really encourage you to speak to the compliance person or even a marketing person in those companies to see how their efforts are going. [You might find the marketing person easier to reach out to :) and get a response.] Additionally, is there any way to bring in the actual federal regulators in order to get their perspective on how new social media plays in their framework for regulation? It would be interesting to see if and how they are adapting to the new technologies. Have fun! Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf
**Comment: Alan and Alex, I think your topic is fascinating and I wanted to chip in my 2 cents which might help your research. Considering the different natures of sites that ultimately sell the same product, I would consider looking at how the two compete in response to one another. By this I mean, is Match doing something that eHarmony isn, and therefore, is eHarmony a bit jealous and trying to get into their market? I know that eHarmony lauched their more casual spinoff "Jazzed.com" which is meant to steal people away from Match. Is Jazzed a suggestion that privacy isn't all that important to frustrated singles? I think that there are also rather large differences in target audience between the two competitors, with eHarmony focusing on a bit older, more conservative crowd while Match goes for the "single and ready to mingle."Also, perhaps look at each companies approach to user profile creation over time, have they changed at all and in what ways? This looks like it'll be an exciting project, I'm looking forward to what you find! ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
*** '' Response: Thanks Tym. I like your observations and I think they may well contribute to our research and final content. It's a good perspective that you bring to light. Alan'' --[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Kristina Meshkova====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf
*Comment: Hey Kristina, I think we have some similar ambitions in regards to our final project. Let's chat tonight if you have any interest in potentially working together [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 14:31, 1 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello Kristina, I found your project very interesting and I am looking forward to see it evolve. I am particularly interested in how and why the streaming content services are so territory-limited, beyond of copyright, and how long will this model survive. In Europe we can use Spotify but instead there is no access to Pandora or Grooveshark, and vice versa. Same happens with Netflix or Hulu. However, Spotify is said to be preparing its expansion to the USA and some people talk about pression groups beyond record labels. I think it could be interesting to explore if there are some inter-continental lobbying activities or corporative deals regarding this issues. Best,[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:00, 6 March 2011.

----

====Name:Vladimir Trojak-- [[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC) ====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.pdf
**Comments: Hello Vladimir, Your proposal is intriguing and I am looking forward to see how it evolves. I did have a question about why do you think that all the Wikipedia policies should be the same in all the language communities? Thanks. --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 03:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I hope it will turn in the way I expect:)I believe that in general they shoudl be the same, such as 'neutral point of view', 'verifiability'. Although there may be differences in other policies because of different laws, such as topics you can speak about. You have any suggestions?Thanks.[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title:<span style="color:#FF0080"> Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc
**Comments: Hello Faye, I read your prospectus but had the following thought. What if the person belives they are in the right? Does that make them still a vandal? And can you outline excatly what recourses one can take against such offenders? What authority can someone make a complaint to? That last question brings us to a much bigger, more complex one. Who has the soveriegn rights over the web? The government? A trade federation? Or individual users? --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
** Facebook recently launched an "anti-troll" algorithm that reduces troll comments by ~50%. Perhaps Epinions.com has implemented a similar algorithm too, and a comparison could be made. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Groooveshark music application</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus''': http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi, Alex. Sorry that didn't answer you earlier. Will be glad to discuss an opportunity to work together on the Final project. Let's discuss it next week in a chat room or via email. This is my email for the course: kristinam2907@gmail.com [[Kristina Meshkova]], 5 March 2011.
**Comment: Hello, Alex. I am very interested in the legal aspect of streaming content services. Have you considered to study this issue from a global point of view regarding a potential Grooveshark expansion? As I stated below Kristina's project, I think both of your prospects are very interesting, I will be following them. Good luck [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Robert Cunningham====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">The Archive Team</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf
**Comment: Hi Robert! Interesting subject, you've narrowed down nicely on one particular group and your areas of interest should cover nicely what the group is and does nicely. Also, your methods seem achievable and will allow you to experience the group, not just observe it (one of the core challenges for many of the projects, including mine.) The one counsel I would give is to go back to the course material we've been discussing to tie the Archive Team back into the course themes. As examples, you could look at the incentive system for contributors, the group hierarchy and governance for control and decision-making, the architecture of the online tools they use, or the merging of offline and online worlds. Have fun! [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Harvard_assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Joshua, I am very much looking forward to your final product. Your position (or what I am assuming your postion to be) comes across very loud and clear in your prospectus. I wonder if you will reach an opinion as to where to draw the line on "free speech," or if no line should be drawn? My reading of your position if you were to define it today is that free speech must be protected at all costs and no limits are appropriate, at least that is the feeling I am left with from your prospectus. If wikileaks posted the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq or elsewhere, would you support that? If not, what else would you feel would be "going to far?" I look forward to reading more from you. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I will try to convey a more balanced and neutral argument in my final paper. I will weigh both sides of the argument and shed light on both. Hopefully, I will be able to come to a consensus. I would not support a decision by Wikileaks to disclose the location or identity of our undercover operatives in Iraq, but I do not believe it is our place to stop them. I believe the government should not be going after Wikileaks but they should be finding and prosecuting the actual leak; not the whistle blowing agency.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Susan Lemont====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Why do people cultivate large online networks?</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc
*Comments:
**Comment: Unfortunately beyond the stated scope of your project (and not practical to include), but it would be interesting to see how your findings compare to similar surveys of Youtube users (who frequently seek comments, ratings, and channel subscriptions) and members of various online forums which award rankings, custom titles, "reputation", and other benefits to prominent posters based on peer imput. Good luck with this topic. (P.S. Also, it might be interesting try and determine what percentages of Facebook 'friends' of these users are A) people they know in real life vs. those relationships which are strictly online-only and B) what proportion of real life contacts were made prior to 'friending' vs. those which were made as a result of meeting virtually via facebook.) [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Susan, your research question is so basic that I am surprised no one else chose a topic towards this issue, since it is the basis of the new big business, social media. From an anthropological point of view, I find it very interesting and not enough explored, focusing the research into motivations: not what or when people share or live online, but why do they do it. Besides, I find your methodology very well planned and practical, although I have some doubts about the sincerity when it comes to explaining to someone you don't know why you have more than 200 friends. I will be following your work with interest, good luck! [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***Response: Thank you everyone for your insightful comments. I have changed my project and the new prospectus follows:

====Name: Susan Lemont --[[User:SCL|SCL]] 20:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">What conditions are conducive to successful commons based peer production?</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Peer_production_Lemont_030611.doc
**Comments: Hi Susan. I like the way you tie the course readings into your project and your "test" of the theoretical writings on a real-life subject. So much of what we study is based on the success stories but we often can learn more from the failures. It will be interesting to know whether some of Benckler's or Zittrain's critical success factors were missing or whether they were all there and the project did not succeed for other reasons. I look forward to reading more about this in your projects. Best, Brian [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Admittedly, I knew nothing of JCP prior to reading your prospectus, but it's a pretty intriguing process. It does make us wonder who is really behind our machines, as most consumers of technology only see (and care about) the surface. I wish you luck in obtaining your inside info, and I look forward to seeing how it comes along! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Are there collective benefits for copyright owners, copyright infringers, and the general community; if copyright infringement is not enforced under specific circumstances on social media sites?</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf
**Comments: Hi Ed, I certainly believe that in specific instances that there can be collective benefits for infringers and owners of copyright. One example is the pirating of the UK run of the TV series Battlestar Gallactica in Australia in October 2004. When the show aired in Australia in January 2005 the ratings exceeded expectations due to “sampling” and word of mouth. Here’s a link to an article with more information http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Elisha Surillo====
* '''Prospectus title:<span style="color:#FF0080"> The Tea Party and Internet Freedom</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: I'm confused. This link does not seem to take me to the correct prospectus? Elisha, could you update this to make sure I can access yours?
**Comment: Hai to the comment above: Elisha and I uploaded with the same file names so they are stacked alphabetically. My file is one that I would like to remove actually but do not know how, but in the meantime, Elisha's file is the second link. Sorry for any confusion. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I don't believe the tea party is just confined to the older generation. I believe it to be a stronger movement that will soon grip the masses. By having such a strong presence on the internet this movment will propell itself forward. I believe this is just the begining of many other grassroots campains and parties.--[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Sorry I would change the name but I don't know how. Sorry for the confusion!'' --[[User:Elishasurillo|Elishasurillo]] 04:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title:<span style="color:#FF0080"> A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc
**Comment: Hello Brandon! I think your topic can be very interesting. However I think it would be important for you to have a specific focus since the topic seems so broad. I don’t know how relevant this would be, but I suggest that you take a look at the Open Content License. (http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) Good luck! [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Lorena Abuín====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf
**Comment: I noticed that there is a lot of crossover between our topics. We are both addressing hacker communities, but from differing angles. I have acquired quite a bit of information about Anonymous and have listed the resources on my tentative reference page located just below here. Feel free to look and use anything from that list that may help you in your project. Also, the Anonymous page found in Wikipedia is quite good in understanding what the Anonymous phenomenon is. They are free agents often acting independently of each other and unaffiliated with one another under the umbrella name Anonymous. In other words, Anonymous is a concept more than an identifiable specific group. I also noticed you have listed pastebin as a resource. It is my suggestion to be careful with that, and try to find where that document was published. It could simply be the rantings of teenager enamored with the publicity of their antics and activity. The questionable authenticity of that write pad entry to me is found in the signature at the bottom. It should read: We are Anonymous/We are legion/We do not forgive/We do not forget/Expect us-always. Lastly, keep in mind that not all Anonymous hacktivity is criminal, that is just the part that gets sensationalized. There are many other cyber-activism efforts that take place under the name of Anonymous that are not criminal. Good luck, and I look forward to watching your project develope! -----=:) [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) for the #datalove
**Comment: I found that some of your research objectives coincide with mine. I can assure you that people do use what is called "hacktivism" to oppose the lies and conspiracies of the U.S. Government. If you take a http://www.nogw.com/ alone you would be surprised how some of the secret documents happen to be available on line. For instance, the loan by the Wall Street Banks to finance Adolf Hitler's Army is not a secret nowadays because of the "hacktivism", although the fact and the document has been kept in secret from the Government of Soviet Union for decades. The role of the Jews in the mass murder of millions is proven with facts on the Holocaust denial web sites. I guess the major drive that motivates people to use their skill in the "wrong way" is to oppose the lie that is bigger in size and thus controls the legacy tools such as Media and Congress. Even children in New York City know that the twin towers were demolished by the "uniformed criminals" employed as the federal agents. Check out the list of literature on my prospectus and http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46 is just one out of dozens web sites. The U.S Government had no reason to deploy troops anywhere at the cost of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you think other citizens do not realize this? They do, but they join others in this giant lie and say that it is a war on terror, and they say this at Law Schools, through the public media, and post it online. These people are indifferent and coward because they lie to themselves and the so called prosecuted activities is the only way to reveal the truth. In your research you are therefore addressing a brave category of people who are ready to risk their lives for the simple yet amazingly right cause - to reveal the corrupted syndicate of greedy liars who oppresses people with their tyrannic power and ability to prosecute. If you are not afraid to cooperate on this project in front of the university staff, then take a look at my proposal and let me know what do you think. I may give you a couple of additional sources and suggestions, but if you do not want to be involved in this type of a project, I will totally understand. Best! --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 10:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai. Thanks for your response. I just thought that I would add that it is very important make the distinction between hackers and crackers. Unfortunately the media has not made this distinction clear and has tainted the meaning of the term hacker. In a nutshell, hackers create things and crackers break things. Most hackers look down upon crackers and dismiss them as technological bugs. Most hackers I know are not pleased with the criminal antics done in the name of Anonymous. It is true that collaborative write pads are in common use because of the ease to collaborate live together at once. Pastebin happens to not be one used for documents all that much though. It is mainly used to send larger pieces of text into chat protocols such as IRC without flooding the channel. Write pads such as typewith.me and piratepad.net are more common to use for group documents since the url is not made public and searchable, and is kept private among the group working on it. Also, an interesting comment about hacktivism made to me by a French hacker with whom I am in contact with simply and broadly described hacktivism as using technology to impact society. I think we must be careful, myself included, when we talk about cracker v. hackers. A classic document among hackers written and maintained by Eric Raymond, "[http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How to Become a Hacker]" describes the difference quite well. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Lorena. I think this is a great topic and I agree that you and Deinous seem to have a strong intersection of ideas. I think the comments I made under Deinous' posting are applicable here as well. It's good to see this topic having such strong discussion. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 04:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi, Alan, thanks a lot for your interest! I can't find your comments below deinous' prospect, and I would really like to check them.'' [[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I too went in search of Allen's comments and were unable to find them :( [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]====
* '''Prospectus title:<span style="color:#FF0080"> Jailbreaking appliance based gadgets and game consoles: the legal and generative implications</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JailbreakingGadetsAndGamesConsoles.doc
**Comment: Margaret, thanks a lot for your offering. I could really use some inside information about this topic. About your suggestion, I chose pastebin as a reference looking for a way to begin my research. You are right when you say that accuracy is not guaranteed when it comes to this source, but my main objective is to test the general perception of internet community about "hacktivism", I want to read about it in forums, press articles comments... See what normal people think about this. Of course, not every "hacktivist" action is a ciber-crime, but I am particularly interested in motivations that lead people to engage in certain projects that could be prosecuted depending on the country, as uploading copyrighted contents. I am sure we could find a lot of profit-driven actions, but I want to get deeper in personal motivations, since there are many so-called "cyber-crimes" that have nothing to do with obtaining a profit, at least a tangible one. When reading your prospectus, I came up with something very interesting: "Happy to help others who are not as advanced?". I think solidarity plays a huge role of hacktivism communities, empowered by the feeling of being passionate about some topic. I guess the desire to share sprouts from passion, but I think that the need of feeling part of a community is also very important, especially when it comes to very well defined criminals such as sex offenders and very sensitive content uploaders, communities widely persecuted but, however, still huge. While my prospectus adopts a more anthropological point of view, I see yours as an inside work with very valuable information about hacktivism running. I look forward to see how your research evolves and to learn more about these communities from a privileged point of view. Please don't hesitate to make any suggestion you may consider, I am sure it will be very helpful for my research. Lorena Abuín. --[[User:lorenabuin|lorenabuin]] 21:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: LOL, I don't know how privileged my point of view is. I am more or less just another nerd with a computer on Friday and Saturday nights. In recent weeks I have come to feel as though the people of Telecomix have accepted me as one of their own though, as I have done a little public relations, fact checking, and some translations. Telecomix is very open about their work, and does not engage in illegal actions. Being mostly European, they lobby against, or for, various cyber laws to their respective Parliaments. What I meant though by my comment "happy too help others who are not as advanced" is that it is common for someone to ask a question of a technological nature and usually others jump in and help to solve the problem. For example, my switch over to Linux, I have been having quite a time configuring a few of my drivers, and getting used to working from a command line with unix syntax, and several people who know how to fix the problems will jump in and start coaching with many lulz along the way.[[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hello there. I am delighted and in part surprised to see a topic of this type. By type I mean it is heavily technological mission to retrieve a piece of real information from the community of real hackers. Not all software engineers employed by the government are able to intervene communication among the community of real hackers. You may however, catch a few portals where "I can do this, I can do that" type of conversations take place, but whether they really have done something interesting and indeed reveal their ideology is a big speculation. For this course, I believe, you need to change your frequency, sort of speak, and listen not for the hacking communities themselves, but for the actions they have already done. Actions speak lauder than words, as you may know. You you need to listen to the anti-thesis, that is, the counter part of the hacking group. In this country, among various subsequent agencies that keep control of all networks, the NSA sources will probably be the most beneficial to you, although I am not 100 percent sure about this. It is difficult to find something that is available to the public. Recall the scandal with pornographic downloads by the employees of the Trade Commission; this is just one out of million examples of the internet traffic control by the Feds. It is therefore the Feds who are on the opposite side of the argument with the hackers. By considering both ideology of the hackers and a counter-premise by the Feds you will have a full and comprehensive picture for your project. In short, I am proposing to search not only within the hackers community, which may only seem as community of hackers and give you a bogus information, but also find reports, chronicles, and cases exposed by the Feds. It may ultimately appear that it is the Feds who are vandals and trolls and who violate privacy and steal the tax money of the citizens. At least this is what my prospectus's sources can prove, but take a look at National Security Agency [http://www.nsa.gov/] web site. In the meantime, I will keep checking on your project and will try to give you more clues because your topic coincides with mine in many regards. --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 06:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Thank you for your response and comments. I will certainly take them into consideration. However, I feel that my views toward hacking are much broader than the criminality of a few, and that there should be more emphasis in part on the difference between hacking and cracking. I am one that still holds the traditional meaning of a hacker as one that is adept with the computer and often generates new creative uses for what is in front of them. As a result I am watching my topic shift a bit and focusing perhaps more on the difficulty that researchers have with the DMCA preventing them from publishing in full their findings, and the law of fair use. Over this past year we have watched the jailbreaking of an iPhone of iPad for the use of external software not approved by Apple go from being an illegal act to being justified as fair use. Although it will nullify any warranty of your gadget. Currently we are watching this same debate occur over the jailbreaking of the Sony PS3 to run Linux and homebrewed games. I am one that supports the fair use argument in that if you are clever enough to make your gadgetry do fun and interesting things beyond the uses that they are intended, then you should be able to do it--especially if you have no intention on using pirated software or make profit of any sort from it. As for an original angle, I am still waffling a bit, and welcome any further comments.====:)'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Margaret, Given your change in perspective of your project you may wish to explore the discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivoization] (if you have note already considered such). The question of, “Should manufacturers of hardware have the right to limit the use of software on their machines when that software included elements covered under versions of the GNU license?” seems a related and interesting debate. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 16:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, thank you so much for your wonderfully concise thesis question! Sometimes it just takes the right little tweak to bring scattered thoughts together, and pondering the legal parameters of an open source kernel wrapped in a proprietary shell is a question I would very much like to spend some time on. Thanks again.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Margaret, I am very glad you found my suggestion helpful. I look forward to your final output. It’s a really intriguing topic. Thanks for checking out web.alive (comment below). I didn’t play any role in developing it (wish I were that bright). My colleague [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiYi3iEBJNM Arn Hyndman] is the chief architect.

Your comment about, “test driving it among a group of ppl,” got me thinking. If we wished to, we could use the tool for a virtual study group. Would you be interested? Do you think others would be? It could be a great environment for classmates to meet and discuss the coursework.

Also, anyone who is working as a group in developing their project can use it to collaborate virtually. There are virtual white boards, web browsers that appear to be mounted on walls, desktop application sharing portals and other tools. I’ll be glad to meet folks in the environment and show how to use the tools. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Guy, I think using web.alive as a platform for a study group is a great idea. Perhaps you can make an announcement in class this week.'' [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Guy Clinch -- [[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title (updated Mar 20): <span style="color:#FF0080">The Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 in North America</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2_%28revised_Mar_20%29.pdf

*To my Classmates: As of March 20 I have changed the title and subject of my finalk project proposal. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

*It has occurred to me that in order to give me feedback on my proposal you may need to experience the web.alive environment. Please feel free to click on the following link and explore. http://apex.avayalive.com/715/html
I look forward to reading your ideas. Thank you. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hai Guy! I recently checked out web.alive and thought on first impression it was a nice sleek, useful, and intuitive application. Very well designed indeed. Were you one of the developers? I'm afraid that at this time I cannot offer much in the way of constructive criticism without test driving it among a group of ppl, but I do see it as a wonderful tool for distance business communication. [[User:Deinous|Deinous]] 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Syed, this is a really interesting topic, but I am concerned that it may be too broad. I feel like a question like yours would more likely take up a book than a paper to be completed over a single semestre! Perhaps you could look into a specific group-buying site rather than the concept as a whole, like Groupon or LivingSocial. It might even be interesting to compare the two. Or, are there sites in which users decide which company they want to solicit such coupons from, rather than having the site itself decide? Just some ideas to help you get this topic down to something manageable. Does this help at all? [[User:Mcforelle|Mcforelle]] 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Hi Michelle - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually planning to do a comparative study between a daily deal website (Groupon) versus a more traditional online retailer (Amazon or ebay) to see which model is more sustainable in terms of driving traffic and providing value. But your comments about 'websites that allow users to decide which company they want to solicit coupons from' has got me thinking now. Project is currently in Work-in-Process mode.Will keep everyone posted. Thanks - Yasir '' ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 22:14, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Hi Jessica,I think crowd funding is a fascinating topic, and there seem to be various types of crowd funding as you point out. Micro Loans and sites such as Kiva.com are also wonderful examples of crowd funding. I am probably over reaching, but I noticed that Syed Yasir A. Shirazi has a prospectus on Group Buying, and wonder if the two can be connected somehow? What if materials needed for a funded project on kickstarter.com for instance, could be purchased through groupon.com or a similar site? Regardless, I am looking forward to your findings around Crowd Funding (especially in the creative space).
**Comment: Hi Jessica: www.33needs.com is another website which would be of interest to you. You might want to take a look at it for ideas related to crowd-funding. Also, let me know if you would be interested in sharing thoughts regarding the final research project.My email id is sshirazi@fas.harvard.edu. Thanks - Yasir ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:24, 06 March 2011

----

====Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Hi Adriana and Anna - E-governance in an emerging country like Brazil is an attention-grabbing subject. As you have mentioned in your prospectus, in terms of audience, Brazil is amongst the top ten countries in the world (I think they have recently moved up to #5 in terms of total internet users). But that said, the overall internet penetration is pretty low (I think it is close to only 40% of the entire Brazilian population).
The G2C part of your project should provide an interesting analysis since concepts like e-voting work the best when the internet usage amongst citizenry is high. Brazil does not have uniformly high internet penetration across the entire county. Maybe you can differentiate the G2C aspect and compare between urban and rural populations because there will be different results (I believe) for effectiveness of such an ‘e-system’ amongst the 2 geographic segments. Also, you can include some analysis on mechanisms for ‘fraud detection’ for e-voting and e-tax filing processes. Thoughts on this link might be of interest to you: http://qssi.psu.edu/files/hidalgo.pdf. Looking forward to reading your final paper. ~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 21:21, 03 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi, I believe you should also compare other countries E- Government practices to Brazil's. It might be interesting to see if there are any other governments polices similar to Brazil's. There might be a government with similar statistics, and by comparing them you might see another variable that might be affecting Brazil. --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
*''' Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf
**Comment: Laura, here is a link to a recent study that you may find of use:
[http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf Envisional - Technical report: An Estimate of Infringing Use of the Internet] <br> Hope you find this helpful --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Laura, glad to see this topic on the list. It's a tough topic as it could be looked at as requiring a world government organization to pass law enacting the crack down on stolen DRM'ed materials. At the same time there seems to be evidence that this type of activity does not hit the bottom line of Hollywood and other world producers of content. Manufacturers of CD and DVD technology has traditionally tried to work with the "Hollywoods" of the world only to be thwarted by the hacker. There seems to be a balance in the mix where the manufactures can create some hurdles for the most common user and at the same time not create a situation where users are not able to access valid content (such as putting in a DVD from Japan in a US DVD player and not being able to play the content). I think we're moving more and more toward online content like Netflix where the content is more controlled and the physical media is going away. Streaming content has some inherent properties that cannot be easily overcome, further, as long as the browser being used to support a new type of encryption technology, companies can make changes to security on the web server side when hackers have found an exploit. It's a very interesting topic, but I think any laws created would be done by people that do not fully understand the technology and also the laws have great potential to be outdated in a short amount of time if not written with enough foresight. Having said that, there has been a great deal of reduction in some types of sharing due to cases against people that have pirated DRM'ed media and also have had big impacts on many sites that traditionally have been an excellent source for finding pirated material. Regards, Alan Davies-Gavin--[[User:Adavies01|Adavies01]] 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]====
*'''Prospectus title:<span style="color:#FF0080"> Online Political Activism in India</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf
**Comment: Hi Alokika: I think your topic is very interesting. You can also draw a comparative line between roles of leading social/political leaders in India versus the role of ordinary internet users when it comes to acting as the leading force behind online social/political debate in India? A lot of times, it has been seen that individuals who don’t follow any hierarchy kick-off such bold campaigns. (Take the example of what happened in Egypt over the last six months. The online movement was sparked by ordinary folks and not any leading social or political figure). I am curious to know whether the online ‘Pink Chaddi’ campaign was initiated by general users or spearheaded by a leading social organization in India. I suspect the former. So it will be interesting to see how the online debate has evolved in India. Looking forward to reading your final analysis.~~[[User:syedshirazi|syedshirazi]] 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Don Hussey [[User:Donaldphussey|Donaldphussey]] 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
**Comment: Don, this is a really ambitious project. I think it's a great idea for you to use your professional position to get your foot in the door with some of the people at Starbucks; I hope it works! My only concern with this project is that you are only focusing on the corporate side of this venture. Is there any way you can include information from participants or contributors to this site? Is there any way on this site that users can interact with each other, or is it a one-way interaction between contributors and Starbucks? ~~[[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Don, I also agree with mcforelle in that you should involve the contributors into your work. For example, if you look at those in support of Starbucks minis (lol)
http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideaview?id=08750000000H4DwAAK
you can ask them if they seriously feel more loyalty to the company based on their contributions--even if they never see their ideas come to fruition? Or do they merely want to be a part of the Starbucks online community? Or do they want bragging rights? Also, it might be interesting to briefly compare the Starbucks strategy--seeing the consumer/contributor as the catalyst of a new product--versus, say, the recent Dominos Pizza strategy--viewing the consumer/contributor as the rater of a finished product. This might allow you to connect the measurable (business performance) with the non-measurable (customer feedback)--the latter which now can be more accurately measured because of social media and online communities. All in all, I think you have great potential with this topic! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Re: methodology, [http://socialmention.com Social Mention] is a free tool you can use to track sentiment/mentions/posts related to Starbucks in various social spheres. Might be worth checking out as the mystarbucksidea project takes off, in order to see how this shapes their metrics! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf
**Comment: Tymoteusz, I find you topic very interesting. <p> I am wondering as a product of your research if you will study the proportion of individuals who are super users compared to commercial organizations using these tools. That is, in respect to commercial organizations using the various tools, how important is the individual? Over time, is the place of the individual becoming more or less important? I would suspect that part of this equation depends upon the rate at which people are able to monetize their involvement as much as how commercial organizations are co-opting the modalities. Is there a constant influx of new blood or will the ability of individuals to monetize their involvement decrease over time? <p>It may be fascinating to see is this is an indication of a generative system over the long run or something that may peak and decline. Good luck! --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
***'' Response: Gclinch, Thanks for all of your input! I initially didn't think to so much as include corporations, but taking a second glance at the subject you're right. I would be foolish to not look at motivations for companies and individuals alike to join sites as super-users. If I can find historical data on users from these sites, I'd like to especially take a look at whether it was individuals who joined first and became super-users, or if corporations jumped onto the "ball game" with individuals following. I suspect the latter isn't true, but I will try to distinguish between companies that joined these sites early on versus already popular companies that grew their earlier existent popularity.'' ([[User:Lewtak|Lewtak]] 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
**Comment: One thing that is very interesting about internet communities is the ability of certain super users to arise. You will find it in all communities from IRC to blogs to forums to games and so on. Normally these are the folks to spend 60+ hours a week on their system (might want to look up references on hours as it relates to superusers) and this is their exposure to the "outside" world. There are different kinds of super users as well. There are the mentors who want to help the community evolve and guide users in the right direction, gently correct them when they are wrong, and are just generally helpful. There are also the dictatorial power mongers who will ban, delete, disparage, etc... anything they don't like, no matter how small the violation or mistake may be. There are many super user personalities in between as well. These individuals do it because they want to do it, not because of pay. Sites that can entice a user community to police itself significantly reduces their overhead costs and still, normally, maintains a good site with good content and a happy user community. Unless, of course, they select a powerMAD person to be the superuser in which case everyone will eventually get upset and move to greener pastures. [[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]]

----

====Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc
**Comment: Fascinating subject! I think that the differences between Chinese and USA based social networking sites is an area ripe for exploration, and one that could potentially shed a lot of light on the effects of government censorship on online communities. Some thoughts: differences in user behavior may be due to many different factors, including site architecture, demographics, and cultural influences. It would be worthwhile to explore the demographic differeces (such as age, socio-economic status, and geographic location) between different sites offering similar services in and outside of China. Furthermore, I wonder if it would be possible to obtain information on the behavior of Chinsese nationals using facebook prior to that site being banned in the PRC, and to compare it to that of non-Chinese nationals? Also, you might look into the social networking habits of users in Hong Kong, where Facebook and simmilar sites (IIRC) remain unblocked. Are their any social networking sites specifically targeted toward the Hong Kong community, and how do such sites differ from those in the rest of China? Finally, I notice that your links seem to be primarily in English. Direct access to Chinese social networking sites, and their users, in their native language would, I imagine, be extremely valuable to this project. [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 03:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I would love to see how your research will bloom at the end of the course. I am from South Korea but I have spent a considerable amount of time in China as my family runs business there. I usually stay in Beijing at least for a month every year and am naturally exposed to the Internet culture of China. As it is widely known, access to Facebook is blocked in the country and sometimes - I am not certain about the cause - access to Google is denied, which practically separates me from my online networks. You prospectus seems to cover general contrasting characteristics of two countries' different social networks. Since the filtering level of these countries varies, setting clear standards for comparing subjects, I think, might be quite crucial. From your project, selecting a proper social network website which can be considered as Facebook of the US would be an essence. Please let me know if you need any help with that.
--[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 03:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)====
* '''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism</span>'''
* '''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf
**Comment: Michelle, I have never heard of Vimeo (this is where the Geico man asks me if I live in a cave), but I think you are onto something very interesting here. Perhaps when you tap the frequent contributors of the site, you can ask them why they post their videos on Vimeo instead YouTube, and if for a time, they did switch over to YouTube, and why? It looks like Vimeo started about a year before YouTube. Where did they share their videos before, or did they not? At the onset, Vimeo seems like a more serious bunch than Youtube, but let's see what you discover! [[User:Myra|Myra]] 21:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Thought this was a very interesting and challenging research topic. I work in the digital advertising space, and video has always been a tough nut to crack for clients. They are drawn to the "sight, sound and motion" element that made TV advertising so successful, but clearly the digital space opens possibilities for an entirely new set of formats beyond the :30 sec TV spot. I have used Vimeo for one of my client's campaigns, and it was the community-oriented nature of its architecture that made it particularly compelling. So, I'll be very curious to read your completed report! Also thought I'd share a helpful resource that summarizes the online video landscape (it's slightly dated, but you might find their case studies to be useful to your cross-analysis): [http://www.emarketer.com/blog/index.php/emarketer-webinar-evolving-online-video-landscape/ eMarketer]. Good luck! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I think this is a very interesting topic and i cannot wait till it is completed. There are so many other video sharing websites besides Youtube. Like Myra said, Vimeo seems to be for more serious users. Also they tend to target a specific group of fellow professionals. I wish I had chosen this topic. Good luck! --[[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]====
*'''Prospectus title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:'''http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
**Comment: Myra, this is a really interesting topic! I feel like this is exactly as narrow a case study as the professors were asking for. I'm jealous that you were able to identify such an relevant topic, lol! I look forward especially to reading the background research for this paper, as it is my understanding that minority youth are disproportionally represented on sites like Twitter; I'm eager to find out whether that rumor is true, and if so, what it means for the way these youth interact with and influence the hiring process. I'm also interested in hearing how these companies help steer the social use of the social media into the practical, career-building use. I'm curious to see if you find that the conclusions you are specific to urban youth or whether such tactics in career counseling are also applicable to suburban and rural kids too. Great prospectus, I really look forward to reading your paper! [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: I, too, think this is going to be a very interesting paper. There is such a need in the corporate community for young people who can help older executives use social media both within the organization for employees and outside the organization for the public and consumers. I would be interested in what the career objectives are for the clients of these two organizations. Are they interested in using their social media skills as part of their job requirements or are they looking for careers in various non-related fields? <<[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
**Comment: Great topic, as I am sure many of us see on a daily basis the generational differences at work, and the need to involve and "catch" the millenial generation. I wonder if the two organizations will provide you with data on their success, and outreach numbers in the community? I look forward to seeing how this plays out. [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
**Comment: Hi Myra - The influence of social media on both the job search process and in the workplace itself is a very powerful topic! If I am interpreting your prospectus correctly, it seems that your primary concern is with how, in practice, the two case study sites prepare Millenials for the proper use of social media in their job search/and work environments? If so, it might be interesting to connect with Human Resources representatives, to get a pulse on how their employee/recruitment policies have evolved due to the emergence of these new communication tools. In theory, I think there should likely be some alignment between the advice from the two websites and what HR is practicing. Separately, you also raise a very compelling distinction, which is that these businesses serve the needs of minority groups. I wonder if this may warrant its own stand-alone investigation. This way, you can truly dedicate your research towards how the workplace and job search process is shifting (and hopefully closing the gap) for minorities, as exemplified by the social media practices and guidelines from your 2 case study sites. In any case, this is indeed a substantial topic, so I look forward to seeing which direction you take it! - Jessica [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]]
***'' Response: Everyone--thanks so much for feedback! I actually am an HR professional myself, and I can tell you that a lot of HR and business literature out there encourages the bridging of generations at work--particularly with the use of technology. Easier said than done! So, I already have an interest in the broad topic and am hoping the two organizations will be willing to share their experiences teaching social media tactics to youth (for career purposes) and offer some insight on the specific needs of minority youth. I actually met the owner of CC4Kidz at a conference a few weeks ago, and after searching for similar organizations, I discovered The Youth Career Coach Inc. As Jessica indicated above, this topic will require some more narrowing down. Thanks!'' [[User:Myra|Myra]] 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: Jose Uscanga====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc
**Comment: Jose, you have identified a truly compelling topic.
When you ask, “Is free press necessary for democracy?” many of us would say, obviously yes. Reading your prospectus though makes me wonder, “what do we mean today by a free press.” Does phenomenon such as Mexican citizens taking, “on the civic responsibility of alerting other citizens by providing detailed and unfiltered information,” redefine what we mean when we use the term press? I’ll be looking forward to reading your conclusions.
I’d also be interested to learn if you think there is something unique about Mexican culture that compels people to get involved. It seems to me that these citizen journalists are taking huge risks. Even less than the professional journalists, there would seem to be no safety net. After all isn’t it easy for the drug cartels to find out who is issuing the alerts. Is it a demographic trend, is it youth driven or does it span the population? Is it something unique about the way Mexican people relate to one another that makes people get involved? Thanks for taking on such an interesting and challenging topic. --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

----

====Name: karishma Goenka--[[User:Karishma goenka|Karishma goenka]] 09:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)====
*'''Prospectus Title: <span style="color:#FF0080">Is India geared up to face the challenges that accompany the rapid advancement of the information age?</span>'''
*'''Link to prospectus:''' http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment-2_Karishma_Goenka.pdf

Assignment 1 Submissions

2013-01-17T21:57:45Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

Aol Case

2013-01-17T21:57:41Z

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

=== Case 1: AOL Community Leader Program ===
* Definition - Group of volunteers in 90s who moderated chat rooms, message boards, and download libraries for AOL.
* Class Action Suit - Two former Community Leaders filed a class action lawsuit against AOL, claiming that AOL volunteers performed work equivalent to employees and thus should be compensated according to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
* Arguments: The Community Leader position was an "employee relationship" with AOL. It required a significant amount of effort and detail:
1) Community Leaders had to undergo a thorough, 3-month training program.
2) Were required to file timecards for shifts.
3) Required to work at least four hours per week.
4) Needed to submit detailed reports outlining their work activity during each shift.
* Inconclusive
The U.S. Department of Labor investigated the report, but came to no conclusions, officially closing the investigation in 2001.
* AOL's response
In response to the investigation, AOL began drastically reducing volunteer responsibilities. By 2000, nearly all Community Leaders had lost content-editing rights and no longer provided customer service or technical support to AOL customers.

In February 2008, the court in which the lawsuit was filed denied AOL's Motion to Dismiss and certified the case for class-action status. The court has ordered AOL to provide the names and contact information for all former Community Leaders to notify them and give them the opportunity to join the class-action lawsuit.

Main Page

2011-01-25T20:23:31Z

BerkmanSysop: /* Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST) */

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2011 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

This course examines current legal, political, social, and technical struggles for control of the global Internet—and the content and relationships it conveys. The course focuses on the interaction of new technologies and services with emerging models of production, innovation, communication, learning, and civic engagement—looking at both the US and international contexts. Prerequisites: willingness to experiment with new technologies and to participate in class discussions, whether virtually or in person. (4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance:'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 25
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 1
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 8
| [[New Economic Models]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 15
| [[Peer Production and Collaboration]]
|-
| Feb 22
| [[Collective Action and Decision-making]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 1
| [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information]]
|-
| Mar 8
| [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Mar 15
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 22
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
|-
| Mar 29
| [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]]
|-
| Apr 5
| [[Copyright in Cyberspace]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| Apr 12
|[[Control and Code: Privacy Online]]
|-
| Apr 19
| [[Internet and Democracy]]
|-
| Apr 26
| [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel]]
|-
| May 3
| [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare]]
|-
| May 10
|'''[[Final Project]] due''' (no class)
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
* [[In the news]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==
* Attend in person at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])
* Live audio/video stream available during class through [http://www.elluminate.com/ Elluminate.com]:<br>
** Our virtual classroom is located here: [https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE]<br>
** If you have trouble with Elluminate, please visit the Elluminate [http://www.elluminate.com/Support/?id=62 support website] or contact one of the class TAs
** If your are participating remotely we ask that you change your audio preferences in Elluminate to enable ''Mute the speaker when "talk" is pressed to prevent feedback.'' You can find this option by going to '''Tools -> Preferences''', and finding '''Speaker Settings''' under '''Audio''' in the left hand options tree. Please have this box checked off.
[[Image:Elluminate talk Settings.jpg]]

* You may also IM to Rob or David directly via gtalk (or jabber): lstu.e120@gmail.com

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The Elluminate sessions will be archived and accessible at [https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/meeting?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226 https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/meeting?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226]

=='''Contact Information'''==
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: internetsociety2011@gmail.com
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

Main Page

2011-01-25T20:18:07Z

BerkmanSysop: /* Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST) */

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2011 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

This course examines current legal, political, social, and technical struggles for control of the global Internet—and the content and relationships it conveys. The course focuses on the interaction of new technologies and services with emerging models of production, innovation, communication, learning, and civic engagement—looking at both the US and international contexts. Prerequisites: willingness to experiment with new technologies and to participate in class discussions, whether virtually or in person. (4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance:'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 25
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 1
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 8
| [[New Economic Models]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 15
| [[Peer Production and Collaboration]]
|-
| Feb 22
| [[Collective Action and Decision-making]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 1
| [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information]]
|-
| Mar 8
| [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Mar 15
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 22
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
|-
| Mar 29
| [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]]
|-
| Apr 5
| [[Copyright in Cyberspace]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| Apr 12
|[[Control and Code: Privacy Online]]
|-
| Apr 19
| [[Internet and Democracy]]
|-
| Apr 26
| [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel]]
|-
| May 3
| [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare]]
|-
| May 10
|'''[[Final Project]] due''' (no class)
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Assigned Readings|Complete List of Assigned Readings]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
* [[In the news]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==
* Attend in person at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])
* Live audio/video stream available during class through [http://www.elluminate.com/ Elluminate.com]:<br>
** Our virtual classroom is located here: [https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE]<br>
** If you have trouble with Elluminate, please visit the Elluminate [http://www.elluminate.com/Support/?id=62 support website] or contact one of the class TAs
** If your are participating remotely we ask that you change your audio preferences in Elluminate to enable ''Mute the speaker when "talk" is pressed to prevent feedback.'' You can find this option by going to '''Tools -> Preferences''', and finding '''Speaker Settings''' under '''Audio''' in the left hand options tree.
[[Image:Elluminate talk Settings.jpg]]

* You may also IM to Rob or David directly via gtalk (or jabber): lstu.e120@gmail.com

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The Elluminate sessions will be archived and accessible at [https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/meeting?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226 https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/meeting?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226]

=='''Contact Information'''==
* All questions, comments, etc. should be sent to: internetsociety2011@gmail.com
** There are no set office hours; feel free to send an email, and the TAs will respond to it as soon as they can.
* If you need to contact an instructor or TA individually, please use their personal contact info located on the [[Staff Contact Info]] page.

File:Elluminate talk Settings.jpg

2011-01-25T20:17:08Z

BerkmanSysop: Screen shot of the Speaker Settings under Audio Preferences for Elluminate live. Each student participating remotely should have this enabled to prevent feedback while talking.

Screen shot of the Speaker Settings under Audio Preferences for Elluminate live. Each student participating remotely should have this enabled to prevent feedback while talking.

Recorded class videos

2011-01-20T18:04:21Z

BerkmanSysop:

The recorded videotapes of the class produced by Harvard Extension School are available here: '''Link to be added here when available''' The videos are typically available 1-2 days after each class.

The Elluminate sessions will be archived and accessible at [https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/meeting?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226 https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/meeting?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226]

For the last recorded Elluminate session: [https://sas.elluminate.com/mr.jnlp?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226 https://sas.elluminate.com/mr.jnlp?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226]

Recorded class videos

2011-01-20T17:56:11Z

BerkmanSysop:

Main Page

2011-01-20T17:55:34Z

BerkmanSysop: /* Participating Asynchronously */

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2011 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

This course examines current legal, political, social, and technical struggles for control of the global Internet—and the content and relationships it conveys. The course focuses on the interaction of new technologies and services with emerging models of production, innovation, communication, learning, and civic engagement—looking at both the US and international contexts. Prerequisites: willingness to experiment with new technologies and to participate in class discussions, whether virtually or in person. (4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance:'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 25
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 1
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 8
| [[New Economic Models]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 15
| [[Peer Production and Collaboration]]
|-
| Feb 22
| [[Collective Action and Decision-making]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 1
| [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information]]
|-
| Mar 8
| [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Mar 15
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 22
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
|-
| Mar 29
| [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]]
|-
| Apr 5
| [[Copyright in Cyberspace]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| Apr 12
|[[Control and Code: Privacy Online]]
|-
| Apr 19
| [[Internet and Democracy]]
|-
| Apr 26
| [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel]]
|-
| May 3
| [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare]]
|-
| May 10
|'''[[Final Project]] due''' (no class)
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Overview of Assignments]]
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
* [[In the news]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==
* Attend in person at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])
* Live audio/video stream available during class through [http://www.elluminate.com/ Elluminate.com]:<br>
** Our virtual classroom is located here: [https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE]<br>
** If you have trouble with Elluminate, please visit the Elluminate [http://www.elluminate.com/Support/?id=62 support website] or contact one of the class TAs

* You may also IM to Rob or David directly via gtalk (or jabber): lstu.e120@gmail.com

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The Elluminate sessions will be archived and accessible at [https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/meeting?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226 https://sas.elluminate.com/site/external/recording/playback/link/table/meeting?suid=M.9E197D693E21933E6609EF2F4D1401&sid=2010226]
* Online Office Hours with the TAs: TBD

Main Page

2011-01-20T17:43:15Z

BerkmanSysop:

= Internet and Society: Technologies and Politics of Control=
'''LSTU E–120 - Harvard Extension School - Spring 2011 - Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST'''

'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact Berkman Center for Internet and Society] - 23 Everett Street - Conference room, 2nd floor'''

This course examines current legal, political, social, and technical struggles for control of the global Internet—and the content and relationships it conveys. The course focuses on the interaction of new technologies and services with emerging models of production, innovation, communication, learning, and civic engagement—looking at both the US and international contexts. Prerequisites: willingness to experiment with new technologies and to participate in class discussions, whether virtually or in person. (4 credits) '''[[course overview|continued...]]'''

=='''Syllabus at a glance:'''==
{| style="background-color:#CCCCCC;"

|-
| Jan 25
| [[Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction]]
|-
| Feb 1
| [[Paradigms for Studying the Internet]]
|-
| Feb 8
| [[New Economic Models]]
| ''(Assignment 1 due)''
|-
| Feb 15
| [[Peer Production and Collaboration]]
|-
| Feb 22
| [[Collective Action and Decision-making]]
| ''(Assignment 2 due)''
|-
| Mar 1
| [[New and Old Media, Participation, and Information]]
|-
| Mar 8
| [[Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech]]
| ''(Assignment 3 due)''
|-
| Mar 15
| ''No class - Spring Break''
|-
| Mar 22
| [[Regulating Speech Online]]
|-
| Mar 29
| [[Internet Infrastructure and Regulation]]
|-
| Apr 5
| [[Copyright in Cyberspace]]
| ''(Assignment 4 due)''
|-
| Apr 12
|[[Control and Code: Privacy Online]]
|-
| Apr 19
| [[Internet and Democracy]]
|-
| Apr 26
| [[Internet and Democracy: The Sequel]]
|-
| May 3
| [[Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare]]
|-
| May 10
|'''[[Final Project]] due''' (no class)
|
|}

{|border="1" cellpadding="5"
|-valign="top"
|
'''Course Information:'''
* [[Overview of Assignments]]
* [[Class Participation]]
* [[Grading]]
* [[Statement on Plagiarism]]
|
'''Assignments & Projects:'''
* [[Assignments]]
* [[Final Project]]

|
'''Resources:'''
* [[Recorded class videos]]
* [[Powerpoint Slides from Class]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page How to edit a wiki]
|
'''External:'''
* [[Upcoming Events]]
* [[In the news]]
|
'''People:'''
* [[Staff Contact Info]]
* [[List of User Profiles]]
|-
|}

=='''Participating During Class (Tuesdays 5:30-7:30 pm EST)'''==
* Attend in person at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 23 Everett St., Second Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/contact directions])
* Live audio/video stream available during class through [http://www.elluminate.com/ Elluminate.com]:<br>
** Our virtual classroom is located here: [https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE]<br>
** If you have trouble with Elluminate, please visit the Elluminate [http://www.elluminate.com/Support/?id=62 support website] or contact one of the class TAs

* You may also IM to Rob or David directly via gtalk (or jabber): lstu.e120@gmail.com

=='''Participating Asynchronously'''==
* The Elluminate sessions will be archived and accessible at '''ED: ADD LINK HERE'''
* Online Office Hours with the TAs: TBD

Class Participation

2011-01-20T17:41:45Z

BerkmanSysop:

This class is designed to be an essentially participatory endeavor. Collectively we know more than we do individually, and by engaging the subject matter interactively, we'll learn the material better. While somewhat challenging due to the distance and asynchronous participation in class, we expect students to be creative in their approach.

'''General requirements'''

* In-class discussions - verbally or through our virtual classroom on Elluminate: [https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE]

* Pre/post class discussions on the individual class pages of the wiki

* Other contributions to the wiki

'''Specific requirement'''

* Constructively comment/critique rough drafts generated in [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Assignments Assignment 2], and post it to the course wiki.

'''How to participate remotely'''

You will likely need a combination headphone/microphone to participate in our virtual classroom on Elluminate (alternatively, you may use a combination microphone/speakerphone if it has echo-cancellation). You will want to check whether your computer has both an earphone and a mic jack to know which type of equipment to get. If it does NOT have both jacks, then you will need to get a USB connection; otherwise, whatever looks comfortable should work fine.

* To get started, please go to the support page on Elluminate's site: http://www.elluminate.com/support/

* We suggest that you do Step 1, then do the Orientation in Step 3, then do your Audio setup in Step 2. This will ensure that you have the software, and let you practice using the audio.

* If you run into problems, you should click the link for the "Self Help Support Portal" on the right side of the Elluminate support site - at the top of the next page is the telephone number for Technical Support. You can always go to Tech Support for any technical problems - it's staffed 24/7, though the wait times can get a bit long. Otherwise, try the Live Help button.

''Note: When you create an account on Elluminate, please use your full name or a pseudonym that will allow us to identify who you are so we can give you credit for your class participation.''

Class Participation

2011-01-20T17:41:19Z

BerkmanSysop:

This class is designed to be an essentially participatory endeavor. Collectively we know more than we do individually, and by engaging the subject matter interactively, we'll learn the material better. While somewhat challenging due to the distance and asynchronous participation in class, we expect students to be creative in their approach.

'''General requirements'''

* In-class discussions - verbally or through our virtual classroom on Elluminate: [https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2010226&password=M.A6ADC1B59710132C0FD422DAA89AEE]

* Pre/post class discussions on the individual class pages of the wiki

* Other contributions to the wiki

'''Specific requirement'''

* Constructively comment/critique rough drafts generated in [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Assignments Assignment 2], and post it to the course wiki.

'''How to participate remotely'''

You will likely need a combination headphone/microphone to participate in our virtual classroom on Elluminate (alternatively, you may use a combination microphone/speakerphone if it has echo-cancellation). You will want to check whether your computer has both an earphone and a mic jack to know which type of equipment to get. If it does NOT have both jacks, then you will need to get a USB connection; otherwise, whatever looks comfortable should work fine.

* To get started, please go to the support page on Elluminate's site: http://www.elluminate.com/support/

* We suggest that you do Step 1, then do the Orientation in Step 3, then do your Audio setup in Step 2. This will ensure that you have the software, and let you practice using the audio.

* If you run into problems, you should click the link for the "Self Help Support Portal" on the right side of the Elluminate support site - at the top of the next page is the telephone number for Technical Support. You can always go to Tech Support for any technical problems - it's staffed 24/7, though the wait times can get a bit long. Otherwise, try the Live Help button.

''Note: When you create an account on Elluminate, please use your full name or a pseudonym that will allow us to identify who you are so we can give you credit for your class participation.''