Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

Final Projects

2011-05-10T03:45:32Z

ChrisSura: /* Submissions */

Final Projects

2011-05-10T03:44:08Z

ChrisSura: /* Submissions */

Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare

2011-05-03T02:44:46Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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 challenges 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 ==
* Whitehouse.gov, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/cybersecurity Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, Cyberspace Policy Review]
* 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]
* Infoweek, [http://informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/229401866 Leaked Cables Indicate Chinese Military Hackers Attacked U.S.]
* CNET, [http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20055091-245.html Cyber attacks rise at critical infrastructure firms]
</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)

I wanted to submit this article to add to the discussion. I found it to be interesting. [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1840000/1839688/p33-brenner.pdf?key1=1839688&key2=5956834031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=74.90.79.253&CFID=18979663&CFTOKEN=55280022] [[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cyberthreats are real and pervasive. The people within IT infrastructure have been fighting the battle for years. It makes no difference whether you work for a government, business or school – every domain (gov, com & edu) is under attack. Private business and the military arm of the government are the most concerned about security, so they were the first to adopt network access control and identity management. Security is enforced by verifying the identity of each user and device before allowing them to gain access to the network. This, of course, runs counter to the idea of a free, open and anonymous Internet. Yes, we can do a lot to protect the public by having the ISPs filter and block malware (search for SonicWALL and Blue Coat for examples) but it’s not enough to stop all breaches and wastes precious bandwidth. Our government recognizes this and is actively promoting what would become a national electronic identity “ecosystem.” (Their euphemism; see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf) Jack Goldsmith had some well reasoned arguments why we should expect more government controls. Finally, a good taxonomy of Internet security practices can be found in the pages of Chief Security Officer Magazine at http://www.csoonline.com/. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]]

== Links ==

Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare

2011-05-03T02:44:01Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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 challenges 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 ==
* Whitehouse.gov, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/cybersecurity Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, Cyberspace Policy Review]
* 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]
* Infoweek, [http://informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/229401866 Leaked Cables Indicate Chinese Military Hackers Attacked U.S.]
* CNET, [http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20055091-245.html Cyber attacks rise at critical infrastructure firms]
</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)

I wanted to submit this article to add to the discussion. I found it to be interesting. [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1840000/1839688/p33-brenner.pdf?key1=1839688&key2=5956834031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=74.90.79.253&CFID=18979663&CFTOKEN=55280022] [[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cyberthreats are real and pervasive. The people within IT infrastructure have been fighting the battle for years. It makes no difference whether you work for a government, business or school – every domain (gov, com & edu) is under attack. Private business and the military arm of the government are the most concerned about security, so they were the first to adopt network access control and identity management. Security is enforced by verifying the identity of each user and device before allowing them to gain access to the network. This, of course, runs counter to the idea of a free, open and anonymous Internet. Yes, we can do a lot to protect the public by having the ISPs filter and block malware (search for SonicWALL and Blue Coat for examples) but it’s not enough to stop all breaches and wastes precious bandwidth. Our government recognizes this and is actively promoting what would become a national electronic identity “ecosystem.” (Their euphemism; see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf) Jack Goldsmith had some well reasoned arguments why we should expect more government controls. Finally, a good taxonomy of Internet security practices and be found in the pages of Chief Security Officer Magazine at http://www.csoonline.com/. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]]

== Links ==

Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare

2011-05-03T02:41:46Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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 challenges 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 ==
* Whitehouse.gov, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/cybersecurity Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, Cyberspace Policy Review]
* 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]
* Infoweek, [http://informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/229401866 Leaked Cables Indicate Chinese Military Hackers Attacked U.S.]
* CNET, [http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20055091-245.html Cyber attacks rise at critical infrastructure firms]
</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)

I wanted to submit this article to add to the discussion. I found it to be interesting. [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1840000/1839688/p33-brenner.pdf?key1=1839688&key2=5956834031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=74.90.79.253&CFID=18979663&CFTOKEN=55280022] [[User:Joshuasurillo|Joshuasurillo]] 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cyberthreats are real and pervasive. The people within IT infrastructure have been fighting the battle for years. It makes no difference whether you work for a government, business or school – every domain (gov, com & edu) is under attack. Private business and the military arm of the government are the most concerned about security, so they were the first to adopt network access control and identity management. Security is enforced by verifying the identity of each user and device before allowing them to gain access to the network. This, of course, runs counter to the idea of a free, open and anonymous Internet. Yes, we can do a lot to protect the public by having the ISPs filter and block malware (search for SonicWALL and Blue Coat for examples) but it’s not enough to stop all breaches and wastes precious bandwidth. Our government recognizes this and is actively promoting what would become a national electronic identity “ecosystem.” (Their euphemism; see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf) Jack Goldsmith had some well reasoned arguments why we should expect more governemt controls. Finally, a good taxonomy of Internet security practices and be found in the pages of Chief Security Officer Magazine at http://www.csoonline.com/. [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]]

== Links ==

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2011-04-26T19:08:58Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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 ==
According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all policy makers must cultivate a culture that promotes the fulfillment of human rights. However numerous policy markers grossly violate their duties to fulfill the declaration, and many governments, especially in the developing world- brutally exploit and corrupt their citizens. So, how are ICT companies suppose to fulfill online rights in volatile environments?
I think it’s interesting how GNI believes ICT companies will abide by their guidelines and try to strategically execute the human rights framework on a global scale within in environments, where violating human rights is considered part of societal norms.
Thus, I’m surprised GNI’s Implementation Guidelines entail, “Participating companies will encourage governments to be specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws and regulations (“government restrictions”) that are issued to restrict freedom of expression online.   Participants will also encourage government demands that are consistent with international laws and standards on freedom of expression. This includes engaging proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with the Principles.”
Freedom of expression and privacy are severely neglected worldwide the recent events in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt and ongoing Civil War in Libya exemplify severe abuse of freedom of expression and human rights. I doubt companies can convince autocratic governments to abide by GNI’s guidelines especially in corrupt environments.
Though “ICT companies have the responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users”. It doesn’t mean the governments will necessarily facilitate such efforts. by Alex

Zittrain and Palfrey suggest a viable model for defining filtering parameters may be to allow the voluntary industry consensus to evolve into established law over time. I liken this to a policy version of the type of production model we saw in our von Hippel readings. If some of the most successful products can be borne out of manufacturer improvements on initial user innovations, I think it is arguable that the same can be said of policy. Proof in practice. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any and all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

== 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: The Sequel

2011-04-26T19:04:45Z

ChrisSura: /* Links */

<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 ==
According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all policy makers must cultivate a culture that promotes the fulfillment of human rights. However numerous policy markers grossly violate their duties to fulfill the declaration, and many governments, especially in the developing world- brutally exploit and corrupt their citizens. So, how are ICT companies suppose to fulfill online rights in volatile environments?
I think it’s interesting how GNI believes ICT companies will abide by their guidelines and try to strategically execute the human rights framework on a global scale within in environments, where violating human rights is considered part of societal norms.
Thus, I’m surprised GNI’s Implementation Guidelines entail, “Participating companies will encourage governments to be specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws and regulations (“government restrictions”) that are issued to restrict freedom of expression online.   Participants will also encourage government demands that are consistent with international laws and standards on freedom of expression. This includes engaging proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with the Principles.”
Freedom of expression and privacy are severely neglected worldwide the recent events in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt and ongoing Civil War in Libya exemplify severe abuse of freedom of expression and human rights. I doubt companies can convince autocratic governments to abide by GNI’s guidelines especially in corrupt environments.
Though “ICT companies have the responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users”. It doesn’t mean the governments will necessarily facilitate such efforts. by Alex

Zittrain and Palfrey suggest a viable model for defining filtering parameters may be to allow the voluntary industry consensus to evolve into established law over time. I liken this to a policy version of the type of production model we saw in our von Hippel readings. If some of the most successful products can be borne out of manufacturer improvements on initial user innovations, I think it is arguable that the same can be said of policy. Proof in practice. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

== 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: The Sequel

2011-04-26T19:04:10Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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 ==
According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all policy makers must cultivate a culture that promotes the fulfillment of human rights. However numerous policy markers grossly violate their duties to fulfill the declaration, and many governments, especially in the developing world- brutally exploit and corrupt their citizens. So, how are ICT companies suppose to fulfill online rights in volatile environments?
I think it’s interesting how GNI believes ICT companies will abide by their guidelines and try to strategically execute the human rights framework on a global scale within in environments, where violating human rights is considered part of societal norms.
Thus, I’m surprised GNI’s Implementation Guidelines entail, “Participating companies will encourage governments to be specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws and regulations (“government restrictions”) that are issued to restrict freedom of expression online.   Participants will also encourage government demands that are consistent with international laws and standards on freedom of expression. This includes engaging proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with the Principles.”
Freedom of expression and privacy are severely neglected worldwide the recent events in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt and ongoing Civil War in Libya exemplify severe abuse of freedom of expression and human rights. I doubt companies can convince autocratic governments to abide by GNI’s guidelines especially in corrupt environments.
Though “ICT companies have the responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users”. It doesn’t mean the governments will necessarily facilitate such efforts. by Alex

Zittrain and Palfrey suggest a viable model for defining filtering parameters may be to allow the voluntary industry consensus to evolve into established law over time. I liken this to a policy version of the type of production model we saw in our von Hippel readings. If some of the most successful products can be borne out of manufacturer improvements on initial user innovations, I think it is arguable that the same can be said of policy. Proof in practice. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

== 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)}}

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 19:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

2011-04-26T19:02:50Z

ChrisSura: /* Links */

<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 ==
According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all policy makers must cultivate a culture that promotes the fulfillment of human rights. However numerous policy markers grossly violate their duties to fulfill the declaration, and many governments, especially in the developing world- brutally exploit and corrupt their citizens. So, how are ICT companies suppose to fulfill online rights in volatile environments?
I think it’s interesting how GNI believes ICT companies will abide by their guidelines and try to strategically execute the human rights framework on a global scale within in environments, where violating human rights is considered part of societal norms.
Thus, I’m surprised GNI’s Implementation Guidelines entail, “Participating companies will encourage governments to be specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws and regulations (“government restrictions”) that are issued to restrict freedom of expression online.   Participants will also encourage government demands that are consistent with international laws and standards on freedom of expression. This includes engaging proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with the Principles.”
Freedom of expression and privacy are severely neglected worldwide the recent events in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt and ongoing Civil War in Libya exemplify severe abuse of freedom of expression and human rights. I doubt companies can convince autocratic governments to abide by GNI’s guidelines especially in corrupt environments.
Though “ICT companies have the responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users”. It doesn’t mean the governments will necessarily facilitate such efforts. by Alex

Zittrain and Palfrey suggest a viable model for defining filtering parameters may be to allow the voluntary industry consensus to evolve into established law over time. I liken this to a policy version of the type of production model we saw in our von Hippel readings. If some of the most successful products can be borne out of manufacturer improvements on initial user innovations, I think it is arguable that the same can be said of policy. Proof in practice. [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

== 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)}}

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.[[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 19:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet and Democracy

2011-04-19T21:20:46Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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.

<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)

== 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)

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)

Assignment 4 Submissions

2011-04-14T04:07:50Z

ChrisSura: /* Submissions */

File:Chris Sura Assignment 4.pdf

2011-04-14T04:00:55Z

ChrisSura:

Copyright in Cyberspace

2011-04-05T21:17:24Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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.

==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)

== 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)

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2011-03-29T02:51:27Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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.

<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 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)

====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)

== 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)

Assignment 3 Submissions

2011-03-22T21:33:47Z

ChrisSura: /* Submissions */

File:Chris Sura Assignment 3.pdf

2011-03-22T21:26:33Z

ChrisSura:

Law's Role in Regulating Online Conduct and Speech

2011-03-07T03:12:48Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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.

==Assignments==

[[Assignments#Assignment_3:_Project_Outline|Assignment 3 due]]
<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 ==
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)

== Links ==

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T01:53:07Z

ChrisSura: /* Submissions */

<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>
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: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya
*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)

*Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Kimberly Nevas --[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
*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)

*Name: Jamil Buie
*Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Uduak Patricia Okon
*Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf

*Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc

*Name: William Bauser -- [[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development
*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)

*Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf

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)

*Name: Yu Ri Jeong --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc

*Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc

*Name: Jillian York[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc

*Name: Caroline McLoughlin[[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Privacy and Society
*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)]]

*Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]
*Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc

*Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc

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)

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)

*Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc

*Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society
*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)

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc

*Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]
*Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc

*Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon
*Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf

*Name: Kristina Meshkova
*Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf

*Name:Vladimir Trojak--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?
*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)

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011
*Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
*Comments:

*Name: Robert Cunningham
*Prospectus title: The Archive Team
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf

*Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]
*Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks
*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)

*Name: Susan Lemont
*Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: 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?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Elisha Surillo
* Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc

* Name: Lorena Abuín
* Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf

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

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)

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)

* Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]
* Prospectus title: Hackers, hacking groups, and Hacktivism: Anonymous v. Telecomix as a case study
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Anonymous_v_Telecomix_with_References.doc

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)

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)

* Name: Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: An Examination of Internet and Society Coursework through the Metaphor of web.alive
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf

* Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]
* Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]
*Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]
*Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf

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: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
* Comments:

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)

* Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf

*Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]
*Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
* Comments:

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)

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)>>

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)

*Name: Jose Uscanga
*Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-03-01T01:26:30Z

ChrisSura: /* Submissions */

<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>
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: The Role of Censorship Of the Internet in the Egypt and Libya
*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)

*Name: Saam Batmanghelidj --[[User:Saambat|Saambat]] 10:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: The Effect of Synthetic World Communities on Real World Societies, Economies, and Copyright law
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Batmanghelidj_Final_Project_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Kimberly Nevas --[[User:KimberlyNevas|KimberlyNevas]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Can the U.S. Prosecute Julian Assange?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Nevas_Kimberly_LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2.pdf
*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)

*Name: Jamil Buie
*Prospectus Title: Profiteering via "Public Privacy" The use/misuse of your data
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JBProject_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Uduak Patricia Okon
*Prospectus Title: Web Pages/Blog Sites: Rights and Limitations-How free are you?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Uduak_Patricia_Okon_Assign_2.pdf

*Name: Yaerin Kim [[User:Quill80|Quill80]] 02:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: OpenCourseWare(OCW) and its Impact: Case Study of MIT’s OCW
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Kim.doc

*Name: William Bauser -- [[User:Wnb|Wnb]] 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Modern Web Design and Civic Engagement: Access to Information and Community Development
*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)

*Name: Brian Smith [[User:Smithbc|Smithbc]] 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Location-Based Services: Implications and Awareness of Effects on Consumer Privacy
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Brian_Smith_-_Assignment_2.pdf

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)

*Name: Yu Ri Jeong --[[User:Yu Ri|Yu Ri]] 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: How manifestations of collective intelligence vary in different cultures and societies: Study on Naver Knowledge iN of South Korea in comparison with Wikipedia.
*Link to Prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Yu_Ri_Jeong_Internet_and_Society_Assignment_2_Prospectus.doc

*Name: La Keisha Landrum [[User:llandrum|llandrum]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Building a Sustainable News Org
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LNLAssignment2.doc

*Name: Jillian York[[User:Jyork|Jyork]] 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus Title: Understanding "Lesbanon": Lebanon's Online Lesbian Community
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Understanding_Lesbanon.doc

*Name: Caroline McLoughlin[[User:Camcloughlin|Camcloughlin]] 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Privacy and Society
*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)]]

*Name:Anthony Crowe [[User:Acrowe|Acrowe]]
*Prospectus title: Tagging and Metadata on the Internet and in New Media
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Crowe_LSTUE120_2.doc

*Name: Vladimir Kruglyak --[[User:VladimirK|VladimirK]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: A Transparency of the U.S. Government in the Socio-Cyber Environment
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.doc

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)

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)

*Name:Corey MacDonald [[User:Coreymacd|Coreymacd]] 20:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Fringe Forums for the Under-represented
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_Assignment_2_MacDonald.doc

*Name: Richard (Rick) Kundiger --[[User:Rakundig|Rakundig]] 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Role of Bittorrent in the Internet Society
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Kundiger_Assignment_2_Research_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Mary Van Gils
*Prospectus title: Yelp Case Study - Freedom of Expression
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus_-_Yelp_Study_Case.doc

*Name: Susan Jennings [[[[User:Sjennings|sjennings]] 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)]]
*Prospectus title: Annuity Companies' Social Media Communities
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Annuity_Companies%27_Social_Media_Communities.doc

*Name: Alan Davies-Gavin & Alex Solomon
*Prospectus title: Architecture of Sites eHarmony and Match.com: contributions of membership data and effects on security and privacy.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment2ProjectProspectus.pdf

*Name: Kristina Meshkova
*Prospectus title: A music sharing site - Grooveshark, Soundcloud, MySpace.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignement_2_%28Kristina_Meshkova%29.pdf

*Name:Vladimir Trojak--[[User:VladimirTrojak|VladimirTrojak]] 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Are different language groups consistent in what topics are permitted and what is removed?
*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)

*Name: Faye Ryding [[User:FMRR|FMRR]] 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: Trolls and vandals on Epinions.com
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Faye_Ryding_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: [[User:Alex|Alex]] Bryan 16:59, 21 February 2011
*Prospectus title: Groooveshark music application
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Prospectus.pdf
*Comments:

*Name: Robert Cunningham
*Prospectus title: The Archive Team
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Proposed_Paper_TopicCunningham.pdf

*Name: [[Joshuasurillo]]
*Prospectus title: The effect of government transparency websites- Wikileaks
*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)

*Name: Susan Lemont
*Prospectus title: Why do people cultivate large online networks?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Lemont_Prospectus.doc

*Name: Chris Sura [[User:ChrisSura|-Chris Sura]] 03:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*Prospectus title: The Java Community Process: How Does It Really Work?
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Chris_Sura_Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Ed Arboleda [[User:Earboleda|Earboleda]] 04:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: 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?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Ed_Arboleda_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Elisha Surillo
* Prospectus title: The Tea Party and Internet Freedom
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Brandon A. Ceranowicz - [[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 08:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A Comparative Study of Open Source Licenses
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_Assignment_2_-_Prospectus_BAC.doc

* Name: Lorena Abuín
* Prospectus title: Contribution to prosecuted online activities (Anonymous, BitTorrent, WikiLeaks)
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_2_-_Lorena_Abu%C3%ADn.pdf

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

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)

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)

* Name: Margaret Tolerton [[User: deinous|deinous]]
* Prospectus title: Hackers, hacking groups, and Hacktivism: Anonymous v. Telecomix as a case study
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Anonymous_v_Telecomix_with_References.doc

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)

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)

* Name: Guy Clinch --[[User:Gclinch|Gclinch]] 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: An Examination of Internet and Society Coursework through the Metaphor of web.alive
* Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Internet_and_Society_Assingment_2%28gclinch%29.pdf

* Name: Syed Yasir Shirazi [User: syedshirazi]
* Prospectus title: Online Group Buying - Newly Emerging Business Model or Fad?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Syed_Yasir_Shirazi-Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Jessica Sanfilippo - [[User:Jsanfilippo|Jsanfilippo]] 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Transparency and Participation in Crowd Funding
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:JSanfilippo_Assignment_2.doc

*Name: Adriana Faria Torii [drifaria] and Anna Christiana Marinho C. Machado [([[User:Anna|Anna]] 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC))]
*Prospectus title: Analysis of E-Government Practices in Brazil
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Faria_Marinho_Prospectus.pdf

* Name: Laura Connell [[User:Ltconnell|Ltconnell]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Does providing a legal alternative act as a deterrent to internet piracy?
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Laura_Connell_Assignment_2_Prospectus.pdf

*Name: Alokika Singh [[User:Singh singh|Singh singh]] 19:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[[User:Singhsingh]]
*Prospectus title: Online Political Activism in India
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment_II_22_feb..pdf

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: Online Crowd-Sourcing of Starbucks Product Development
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:LSTU_E-120_--Hussey_-_Asmt2.doc
* Comments:

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)

* Name: Tym Lewtak [[User:lewtak|lewtak]] 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: User Generated Sites: Defining Superusers and Their Monetization
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Assignment_2.pdf

* Name: Denise Reed--[[User:Dreed07|-dreed07]] 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: A comparative study of user behavior on Chinese social networking sites with that of United States social networkers
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/REED_LSTU_E120_Assignment_2.doc

* Name: Michelle Forelle [[User:mcforelle|mcforelle]] 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
* Prospectus title: Online Video-Making Groups: Community, Copyright, Collaboration and Commercialism
* Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Assignment2_Vimeo.pdf

*Name: Myra Garza [[User:Myra|Myra]]
*Prospectus title: Preparing and Accommodating Millenials in the Workforce: Use of Social Media in Two Career Coaching Businesses
*Link to prospectus:http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Garza.M.Prospectus.doc
* Comments:

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)

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)>>

*Name: Jose Uscanga
*Prospectus Title: Cummunity reporting or social activism? The New Age of media reporting in Mexico.
*Link to prospectus: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/Image:Jose_Uscanga_Assignment_-2.doc

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2011-03-01T00:44:06Z

ChrisSura: /* Links from Class */

<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?

<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 ==

== Links from Class ==
* 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)

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)

Collective Action and Decision-making

2011-02-22T22:27:04Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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 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)

== 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)

Assignment 2 Submissions

2011-02-22T03:13:51Z

ChrisSura:

File:Chris Sura Assignment 2.pdf

2011-02-22T03:04:21Z

ChrisSura:

Assignment 1 Submissions

2011-02-10T22:09:09Z

ChrisSura: /* Submissions */

File:Chris Sura Assignment 1.pdf

2011-02-10T21:47:47Z

ChrisSura:

File:Assignment 1.pdf

2011-02-10T21:42:36Z

ChrisSura:

List of User Profiles

2011-02-08T03:29:52Z

ChrisSura: /* N-S */

This is a list of user profiles on this wiki. Until a consensus on policy is come to, this listing will be voluntary.

This page differs from the [[Special:ListUsers|User List]] page in that this page contains only active profiles of individuals who wish to contribute to this wiki. Please add yourself by clicking on the appropriate edit button next to the letter range that corresponds to your user name.

==Users==

===A-G===
=====adavies01=====
I'm Alan Davies-Gavin. I'm an ALB candidate in computer science. I've worked in the IT field for a number of years and am now returning to finish my BA. I'm originally from NH, and have lived on the west coast and Europe. I'm actually used to reading blogs for information, I'm not actually a blogger (subject to change). I do have a lot to say on the subject matter that we'll be covering and I'm also looking forward to discussions.

=====alexleavitt=====
I am a research assistant at Microsoft Research, as well as a researcher for the Comparative Media Studies department at MIT, Microsoft Entertainment & Devices, and the Web Ecology Project. I graduated Boston University in 2009, and I am currently applying to graduate school.

=====Alexsolomon=====
I'm an ALB degree candidate at Harvard Extension School (Concentration: Humanities, Field of study: Journalism, Citation: Business/Marketing). I'm originally from Toronto, Canada. But I currently work as a public relations (PR) coordinator at an elite PR firm in Manhattan and I live in Manhattan too. I'm also an avid fashion blogger, and Twitter and Facebook user.

=====BrandonAndrzej=====
A former ex-patriot English teacher, I have returned to the US with the intention of perusing a degree in international law. I have a deep and abiding love for history and a strong interest in things geo-political.

=====Dardia=====
I am a fellow at the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet & Society] and the director of the [http://dmlp.org/ Digital Media Law Project]. In a past life I was assistant counsel at The Washington Post and before that was an associate at Williams & Connolly in Washington, DC, where I handled a range of intellectual property and media litigation.

=====donaldphussey=====
I am an ALB student in Social Sciences with a focus in Government. By day, I am an SVP for Global Internet Strategy for a big bank. I live in New York and am attending online.

=====Earboleda=====
I work for a large financial institution in the Northeast, and will be attending class on-site and online.

=====Gclinch=====
My name is Guy Clinch. I create communications technology solutions solving problems for organizations across the globe. I specialize in helping government agencies use communications solutions to serve the requirements of their citizens. Should you be interested: [http://www.avaya.com/blogs/archives/author/authord18df/ My blog], [http://www.linkedin.com/in/guywclinch my professional profile] Looking forward to sharing a dynamic and engaging semester!

===H-M===
=====Jastify=====
My name is Sergey, I am a recent graduate from Moscow State University. Here to get some perspective on the subject which interests me quit a lot.

=====Jedmonds=====
My name is Jennifer Edmonds. I am a Legislative Analyst with the State of California. This is my first semester at the Harvard Extension, and although I would love to attend class in person, because of my locale, I am forced to participate asynchronously. I'm looking forward to achieving a better understanding of the government's current role in technology and the issues that will influence its future involvement.

=====KimberlyNevas=====
I am an ALB candidate focusing primarily on economics and law. I took a year off from college to be a newspaper reporter in Connecticut. My dad is a fan of the Berkman Center and recommended I take this class.

===N-S===

=====RebekahHeacock=====
I'm a project coordinator at the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Berkman Center for Internet & Society] and the co-director of the [http://transparency.globalvoicesonline.org/ Technology for Transparency Network]. I recently graduated from the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, where I studied the relationship between communications technologies and development.

=====RobertCu=====
I'm a card carrying member of the eff and the fsf and one of the inaugural viewers of zdtv. I went to the same prep school as the founder of wired magazine and personally lobbied she get a well deserved alumni award. I've attended many different colleges everywhere from st. johns college the great books school in Annapolis where I had a dsl line installed to my dorm room giving me more bandwidth then the rest of campus combined, to where I am now, the Harvard extension school where I am a alb degree candidate. Even though I'm conversant in python, html, c++, and ti-basic I'm a humanities concentrator. My favorite authors are Borges, O'brien, Doctorow(cory not e.l), Aristotle, and Lessig.

=====Saambat=====
Currently, I work at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT managing annotations for computational linguistics research. I'm here at the Extension School to finish up my BLA, and this is my last semester. Of course, the internet is a large part of my life, much like many others, and I seek to better understand the beast and how it is controlled.

=====Chris Sura=====
I am an ALB candidate pursuing Computer Science as my field of study and a citation in Legal Studies. I have worked in the IT field for the past 30 years; the latter half with my current employer, a Fortune 100 insurance company. I have a good understanding of the protocols and hardware that support the infrastructure, but only rudimentary knowledge of the law.

===T-Z===
=====VladimirTrojak=====
Hello, my name is Vladimir. I am from Slovakia (It is not Slovenia:)). After finishing law school in Slovakia I applied for LL.M. degree in IT/IP Law to Leibniz University Hannover, Germany where I spent winter semester. This semester I am spending as a visiting student at University of Edinburgh, UK, where I do only IP Law.

New Economic Models

2011-02-08T02:56:44Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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.

==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>

== 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)

== Links ==

Paradigms for Studying the Internet

2011-02-05T20:30:35Z

ChrisSura:

<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.

<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>

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 because like so many, I seek to maximize my ability to profit by pooling my finances in investment cartels and 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)

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)

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2011-01-26T00:19:07Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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. --[[User:?Unknown User|?Unknown User]]

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 in specifically 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:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 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)

''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)

--------

“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:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 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)

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

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

== Other Useful Links ==

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2011-01-26T00:18:18Z

ChrisSura: /* Class Discussion */

<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. --[[User:?Unknown User|?Unknown User]]

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 in specifically 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:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 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)

''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)

--------

“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:Trojsy|-Trojsy]] )07:29, 25 January 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)

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

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.

== Other Useful Links ==